IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10465 of 2009(C)
1. MOHAMMED ASHRAF P.K. S/O. KHADER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,
... Respondent
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
3. THE SECRETARY,
4. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :23/06/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
.......................
W.P.(C).10465/2009
.......................
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioner availed a loan from the 1st respondent,
Bank, noted as agricultural gold loan to the tune of
Rs.1,23,000/-. Essentially the loan was availed by
pledging the gold ornaments and according to the
petitioner, it was used for agricultural purpose.
Petitioner submits that though he is entitled to the
benefit under the Agriculture Debt Relief, he has not
been granted the same. This has been challenged by
the petitioner and hence the writ petition.
2. Bank has filed a statement pursuant to the
directions issued by this Court. It seems that the
petitioner availed an Agricultural Gold Loan (AGL)
2488/06 of Rs.1,23,000/- on 14.10.2006. Gold loans
are short term loans which are repayable within a
period of one year. Petitioner also has a Savings Bank
account with the bank. Petitioner executed a pledge
letter towards the loan account. He had availed two
W.P.(C).10465/2009
2
other loans of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.75,000/-
respectively. Gold loan is given for a period of one
year. On the expiry of the said period, petitioner
availed another Gold Loan for an amount of
Rs.1,23,000/- and closed the earlier gold loan account
by transferring the amount from the loan account to
the Savings Bank Account. Petitioner withdrew the
amount from the savings bank account and remitted
the cash withdrawn, in the gold loan account which
was then sought to be closed. Then a fresh gold loan
was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and a fresh
pledge letter was executed on 15.10.2007. According
to the petitioner, the gold loan was closed in October
2007, but had it remained as a defaulted loan
account beyond 31.12.2007, he would have been given
the benefit of the Agriculture Debt Relief Scheme.
3. I heard learned counsel on both sides. The
extent of concession granted under the Scheme for
agricultural loan is dependent on the extent of
property held by the petitioner. Petitioner had actually
W.P.(C).10465/2009
3
closed the first loan and he cannot now be heard to say
that an independent transaction was manipulated by
the Bank authorities. The amount sanctioned under
the new loan had been transferred to the SBI account,
had withdrawn the same and then deposited it in the
agricultural gold loan account. What the Bank has
done is a refinancing facility and it so happened that
the said facility was afforded in October 2007. Be
that as it may, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner
was not a defaulter vis-a-vis the new loan account as
on 31.12.2007. He is therefore, not entitled to be
treated as a defaulter under the Agriculture Debt
Relief Scheme. I find no merit in the writ petition.
Hence the same is dismissed.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs