IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 23051 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ P.PURUSHAN, S/O.PAPPU, AGED 74, VADAYAMVEEDU, PARAYAKAD.P.O, THURAVOOR, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SMT.SHEENA SAMUEL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY IT'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY TO CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, CHERTHALA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SENIOR MANAGER. 5. THE PARAYAKAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO 2869,PRAYAKAD.P.O, THURAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN,SC,ALAPPUZHA DIST.CO.OP.BA FOR R4 SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR FOR R4 SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R5 SRI.S.SUJIN FOR R5 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.23051/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 24.11.2004 ALONG WITH THE ORDER SANCTIONING THE SAID LOAN. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM DT 16.1.2008 WITH THE ENDORSEMENT OF SANCTIONING THE LOAN. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEBT WAIVER AND RELIEF SCHEME, 2008. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.41/2008. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SMALL AND MARGINAL FARMERS WHEREIN THE PETITIONER WAS SHOWN AS SL.NO.16. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 19.7.2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 23051 OF 2008 (T) ===================== Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims entitlement of the benefit of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Relief Scheme, 2008 announced by the Government of India. 2. The petitioner claims to be a marginal farmer under the scheme, who had availed of a loan of Rs.55,000/- under the Kissan Credit Card Scheme from the 5th respondent Bank. The loan was availed of on 29/11/2004 and default was committed. When recovery proceedings were initiated, he made another application for a loan to the 5th respondent Bank itself. Copy of this application is Ext.P2. The purpose of the loan mentioned in Ext.P2 was to discharge his existing liabilities. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the loan pursuant to Ext.P2 was sanctioned on 22/1/2008 and availing of the said loan, the liability due under Ext.P1 was discharged by the petitioner. 3. The second loan is also in default now. After the second loan was sanctioned, availed of and Ext.P1 liability was settled, Ext.P3 Debt Waiver Scheme referred to above was WPC 23051/08 :2 : announced by the Government of India and implemented by Ext.P4 circular. Though the petitioner's name also was included in the list of eligible persons prepared by the Bank, he was not extended the benefit of the scheme. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the first loan was in default as on 31/12/2007 and was remaining outstanding till it was settled availing of the 2nd loan, in the last week of February, 2008. It is stated therefore that irrespective of whether he has discharged the debt by availing of yet another loan or not, the petitioner should be extended the benefit of the scheme particularly because it is a beneficial scheme waiving liabilities of farmers of his type. The respondents are disputing the eligibility of the petitioner. According to the respondents, the petitioner's case does not come within the purview of the scheme. It is stated that the scheme is not intended to reopen closed transactions as in this case. 5. Ext.P3 scheme provides that it is applicable to loans disbursed upto 31st of March, 2007 and overdue as on 31st December, 2007 and remaining unpaid until 29.2.2008. Although WPC 23051/08 :3 : the fist two limps of this provision of the scheme is satisfied in this case, admittedly the liability was settled by the petitioner before 29.2.2008. If that be so, the case of the petitioner is not covered by Ext.P3 scheme. That apart, no provision of the scheme enables reopening of closed transactions. In view of this, petitioner cannot say that irrespective of his having discharged the liability availing of a second loan, he should be extended the benefit of the Waiver Scheme in respect of the loan availed of by Ext.P1 and that amount should be refunded. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp