IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 559 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.1568/2009 Dated 15/01/2009 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER IN WPC ------------------------------------------ SUDHEER E.K., S/O.E.A.KRISHNAN, ELLATH PARAMBIL HOUSE, PULLOOT DESOM, PULLOOT VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, TRICHUR. 2. TRICHUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, TRICHUR. ADV.SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN FOR R2 SPL.GOVT. PLEADER SMT.A.G.ANITHA FOR R1. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 559 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated 24th March, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He availed a loan from the 2nd respondent Bank. He closed the loan account on 1.12.2007. Later, the 1st respondent Joint Registrar, on the motion made by the appellant, directed the 2nd respondent Bank to extend the benefit of Circular No.30/2007 to the appellant. The Bank took the stand that the same cannot be extended to him, as the loan account is already closed. Ext.P1 is the reply of the Bank to the direction of the Joint Registrar. Feeling aggrieved by the stand of the Bank and for enforcing the direction issued by the Joint Registrar, the Writ Petition was filed. 2. The 2nd respondent Bank would point out that the appellant was an abkari contractor. He suffered loss in that business. He incurred heavy expenditure for marrying of his daughter. The appellant has actually cleared the loan amount and therefore, he has got the capacity to make the payment WA 559/2009 2 due to the Bank. Circular No.30/2007 is not meant to help such persons. 3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the transaction between the appellant and the Bank was a commercial transaction. Since it was concluded long ago, the same cannot be re-opened subsequently, it was held. 4. The various schemes are introduced by the Government and the Co-operative Department for debt relief, to help persons without any means to pay the loan amount due to financial institutions. It is not to help affluent persons at the expense of the institutions concerned. So, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge. But, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has a right in terms of the circular, in view of Section 66A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. If that be so, the appellant may work out the remedies available to him under the said Act. Without prejudice to that right, the appeal is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. nm/