IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5344 of 2011(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SUBI.K.B,KADUKUMMAKKAL HOUSE, KARIPPILANGADU.P.O,IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. MS. SREEDEVI KYLASANATH MS. SHALEENA RAJAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,SC/ST DEVELOPMENT(B)DEPARTMENT,GOVENRMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001. 3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE MANAGER,ARAKKULAM FARMER'S SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,ARAKKULAM,IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685591. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 5344 OF 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 21st day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who belongs to a scheduled caste community, had availed a loan of ` 5,000/- from the 4th respondent. However, the amount was not repaid as agreed, because of the alleged frustrating pecuniary circumstances and the petitioner turned to be a defaulter, when the Bank proceeded with further steps for realization of the due amount as borne by Ext. P7 notice issued on 12.07.2010 claiming a sum of ` 6,522/-. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is very much entitled to have the benefit of 'waiver', in view of the Scheme promulgated by the Government, particularly, as discernible from Ext. P4 Government Order issued in this regard. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also places reliance on Ext P10 judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, whereby the course pursued by the concerned respondents stipulating a 'cut off' date has been deprecated, observing that, the benefits that are being extended to the 'fishermen folk' are liable to be extended in the case of the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes, since they are probably in no way better positioned than the members of the Fishermen community. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits W.P. (C) No. 5344 of 2011 : 2 : that, the petitioner has already been brought up the matter before the first respondent by filing Ext. P11 representation and that the same is still to be finalized. 4. Heard the learned special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. 5. Considering the limited nature of relief sought for, this Court does not propose to issue notice to the 4th respondent for the time being. In the said circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext. P7 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law and also in tune with the contents of Ext. P4 and Ext. P10 judgment, with notice to the petitioner and also to the 4th respondent. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the Writ Petition before the first respondent for taking further steps. 'Status quo' shall be maintained till such time. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd