IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 15795 of 2009(T) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ JOSEPH ULAHANAN VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, AMAYAPRA, UDUMBANNOOR THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. SRI SIDHARTH BISWAL DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER AND COMPLAINTS REDRESSAL OFFICER,THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,KRIMANOOR BRANCH THODUPUZHA. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, (RR) THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY SRI.K.S.DILIP, SC-SBT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 15795 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The case of the petitioner is that, the loan availed by him from the respondent Bank, being an agricultural loan, comes squarely within the purview of Ext.P1 Scheme (Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief's Scheme 2008) and hence that it is liable to be closed, since the petitioner very much satisfies the requirements as specified in the Scheme. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, he has already approached the first respondent by filing Ext.P3 representation for granting the benefits under the Scheme, which however is stated as still pending. 2. The respondent Bank has filed a statement, wherein it is stated that, the petitioner is not entitled to have the benefit of complete waiver and that the eligibility is only to an extent of 25%, while the balance 75% is to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, with specific reference to the reply affidavit filed, submits that, the position as above was never conveyed to the petitioner at any point of time and the name of the petitioner was earlier shown in the notice board of the Bank, displaying the list of persons who were entitled for total waiver WPC NO.15795/2009 2 under the Ext.P1 Scheme. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on Ext.P5 letter dated 15.06.2009, informing the petitioner that, his case had already been taken up by the concerned Branch and that the outcome would be let known to him in the due course. 3. After considering the facts and circumstances, the respondent Bank is hereby directed to consider Ext.P3 in tune with the norms prescribed under Ext.P1 Scheme and finalise the claim of the petitioner, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, till such orders are passed on Ext.P3, the coercive proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act , pursuant to Ext.P2, shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc