IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 137 of 2010(N) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ KOTTA MAMMUNNI HAJI, S/O.KUNHAMMUTHY HAJI, ASARI THODI HOUSE, NEDIYIRUPPU PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN 673 638. BY ADV. SMT.K.G.SAROJINI RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL OFFICER, SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, NEDIYIRUPPU BRANCH, KONDOTTY PO, PIN 673 638. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, NEDIYIRIPPU BRANCH, KONDOTTY PO., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 638. 3. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI 110001, REP BY ITS DIRECTOR AC. R1 & R2 BY ADV.MR.T.R.RAVI, SC, SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK R3 BY ADV.MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 137 of 2010-N - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of the benefit of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. 2. The loan in question was to the tune of Rs.3 lakhs availed from the second respondent Bank. As per Ext.P1, he was informed that there is a balance to the tune of Rs.2,41,738/- as on 1.10.2008 along with interest. In reply, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 representation seeking for the benefit of the Scheme. Again, he was served with Ext.P3 notice, wherein nothing is mentioned about the eligibility for the benefit of the Scheme. The petitioner is relying upon Exts.P4 and P5 circulars also. 3. From the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, it is clear that the petitioner was initially granted a loan of Rs.3 lakhs under the Kisan Credit Card Scheme on 9.12.2004. After successive renewals, he closed the said loan account on 8.8.2006 and on the same day he availed of another loan for Rs.3 lakhs which was due for payment on 7.8.2007. No repayment has been made in the account till 7.8.2007 and when the bank issued notice, he closed the account on 19.9.2007 and on the same day, he wpc137 /2010 2 availed another loan of Rs.2,63,000/-. The above loan was due for payment on 18.9.2008. An amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid by the petitioner on 25.10.2007 and there had been no further remittance. The loan became overdue only on 18.9.2008 and as on 8.12.2009 the amount due under the account was Rs.2,80,765/-. It is further pointed out that the loan availed by the petitioner comes under the category of short term production loan. In such cases the amount eligible for relief is the amount of loan disbursed upto 31.3.2007 and overdue on 31.12.2007 and remaining unpaid until 29.2.2008. This is the crucial term for making a person eligible to get the benefit going by the details of the scheme as averred by the petitioner himself in para 6 of the writ petition. 4. Herein, these conditions are not attracted since the loan was availed only on 19.9.2007 and it became due for payment on 18.9.200 only. Therefore, the contention that the scheme is applicable, since the loan is not one disbursed up to 31.3.2007 and not one which became overdue on 31.12.2007. Obviously, therefore, he is not entitled for the benefit of wpc137 /2010 3 the Scheme. Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/