IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22021 of 2009(W)
1. K.SAJEEVAN, S/O.KUTTAN, PARAKALAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
3. NABARD, PONNIAM ROAD,
4. THE TATTAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
5. THE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL OFFICER,
6. THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE
For Petitioner :SRI.S.EASWARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :13/08/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.22021 of 2009
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 13th day of August, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner had availed of a loan from the 4th respondent.
Default was committed, and subsequently, the amount has been
paid, and the liability also has been settled. It was subsequent to
that Ext.P1, the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme,
2008 was announced by the Government of India. Though the
liability has been settled as above, contending the liability incurred
by him comes within the parameters laid down in Ext.P1 Scheme
and therefore the petitioner is eligible for the benefit of the Scheme,
he made an application. That was rejected by Ext.P2 order passed
by the 5th respondent stating that the liability does not come within
the scope of Ext.P1. It is thereupon that this writ petition is filed
challenging Ext.P2 and seeking an order requiring the respondents
to extent him the benefit of Ext.P1.
2. It may be true that the loan availed of by the petitioner is
an agricultural or other loan provided under Ext.P1. However, the
WP(C) No.22021/2009
-2-
scheme only provides for waiver of liabilities, and for that liability
should be outstanding. In this case, as already seen, the liability
has been settled. The Scheme does not provide for reopening of
settled liability and refunding what has already been paid.
Therefore, Ext.P2 is only to be upheld and the writ petition is only to
be dismissed, and I do so.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg