IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 24846 of 2010(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. V.V.PAILY, VALIAPLAKKAL HOUSE, MYLALLAMPARA P.O., PUDUPPADI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. SHELLY PAUL, VALIAPLAKKAL HOUSE, MYLALLAMPARA P.O., PUDUPPADI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ASSOCIATE OFFICE, ZONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE-673 614. 2. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, BALUSSERY AD BRANCH, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 612. 3. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, BANK LOAN ARREARS COLLECTION, REVENUE RECOVERY, CIVIL STATION P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 614. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA STATE AGRICULTURAL DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-673 614. R1 & R2 BY SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, S.C, ADVS. SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH, SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR. R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.24846 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Revenue recovery action initiated for realisation of arrears in agricultural loans availed by the petitioners, is under challenge. The loans in question were availed by the petitioners on 26.9.1996. The petitioners are seeking benefits of Ext.P1 Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India, providing a scheme for 'One Time Settlement' with respect to agricultural loans of small and marginal farmers. It is pointed out by petitioners that the guidelines will cover loans with outstanding balance upto Rs.50,000/-, which has become NPA as on 31.3.1998. It is mentioned in the circular that in eligible cases a waiver of interest as included in the outstanding amounts as on 31.3.1998 or which is accrued on the balance outstanding after the said date, will be waived. Learned counsel for the W.P.(C).24846/10 -2- petitioners points out that in clause 2(vii) of the circular it is stipulated that the Bank should give adequate publicity about the scheme to all eligible defaulting borrowers, in order to facilitate them to avail the opportunity. Exts.P4 & P4(a) are representations filed by the petitioners seeking benefits of the above said scheme. But those representations were considered and rejected through Ext.P5, mainly assigning the reason that the scheme is applicable only with respect to agricultural loans disbursed between 31.3.1997 and 31.3.2007, and since the loan accounts of the petitioners are not falling within the said category, they are not eligible to be considered for waiver of interest. Eventhough the petitioners approached the Bank again seeking a re-consideration, it was declined. Now proceeding for recovery is being pursued, is the complaint. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank, pointing out to a statement filed, contended that Ext.P1 scheme was applicable only upto 31.12.2002, as provided in clause 2(i)(d) of Ext.P1. It is W.P.(C).24846/10 -3- contended that the petitioners have never approached the Bank within the said period. On the contrary, referring to the provisions contained in Ext.P1, learned counsel for the petitioners points out that it was the duty of the Bank to intimate all eligible borrowers to avail the benefits under the scheme. Since the Bank had failed to give any intimation in this regard, they could not be permitted to raise objections with respect to delay caused in raising the claims. 3. Counsel for respondent made available for my perusal a copy of another scheme viz., “Agricultural Debt Waiver And Debt Relief Scheme 2008” issued by the Central Government. Pointing out to clause 4.3 of the said scheme it is contended that the said scheme is also applicable only with respect to the loans disbursed prior to 31.3.1997. Since the loans in question were disbursed on 25.9.1996, the same will not fall within the category of new scheme also, is the argument raised. 4. Considering the rival contentions I am of the W.P.(C).24846/10 -4- opinion that the petitioners could not agitate the issue regarding eligibility for benefits under the scheme, in this writ petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not proper for this court to enter upon any adjudication on the issue which may require evidence with respect to factual aspects. However, it is pointed out that the petitioners have not chosen to approach the commission constituted by the State Government in this regard namely, “The Farmers Debt Relief Commission”. Under these circumstances I am of the opinion that a final decision with respect to eligibility of the petitioners for waiver of interest, based on Ext.P1 or on the basis of the subsequent scheme of 2008, cannot be taken in this writ petition. 5. However, the petitioners are given liberty to approach the appropriate authority under the respondent Bank, once again claiming such benefits. If the petitioners can convince the authorities about their eligibility, the respondent Bank may consider waiver of interest to the W.P.(C).24846/10 -5- possible extent, either under any of the schemes or under the general norms of the Bank which is applicable to other categories of loans. If the petitioners make any such approach, the appropriate authority under the respondent Bank shall consider the same and inform the decision taken thereof to the petitioners, without any further delay. 6. In order to facilitate the petitioners to make such approach, coercive steps now being pursued under Exts.P6 & P6(a) are directed to be kept in abeyance for a period of one month from today. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb