IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20030 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ CICILY GEORGE, OTTALANKAL HOUSE, VELATHUSSERY PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MEENACHIL, PALAI. 2. THE TEEKOY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, TEEKOY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 20030 OF 2009 (W) ===================== Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P2 and P4. Petitioner states that on 23/12/2005, she availed of an agricultural loan of Rs.2 lakhs from the respondents. Default was committed and it is stated that while so, the Central Government announced Ext.P1 scheme. Petitioner was not included in the list of beneficiaries prepared by the Bank, and by Ext.P2, she was informed that she was ineligible for the benefit of the scheme for the reason that tax receipt was not produced at the time of availing of the loan. She complained to the 1st respondent by filing Ext.P3, and by Ext.P4 reply, her complaint has been rejected stating yet another reason that there was nothing to indicate that the petitioner was engaged in agricultural activities. 2. In my view, the stand taken by the 1st respondent in Ext.P4 is erroneous. If as a matter of fact, agricultural loan was availed of by the petitioner, the reason stated in Ext.P4 cannot be sustained. That apart, what was called in question before the 1st respondent was the correctness or otherwise of the reason stated WPC 20030/09 :2 : by the Bank in Ext.P2 and that issue has not been considered. 3. For these reasons, I quash Ext.P4 and direct the 1st respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of Ext.P1 Scheme with notice to the parties. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp