IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19988 of 2010(W)
1. THE PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE FARMERS DEBT
... Respondent
2. C.P.RAVINDRAN NAIR,
3. P.RAMANIAMMA,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.G.ARUN
For Respondent :SRI.V.SETHUNATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :04/02/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) Nos.19988/2010 & 545/2011
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Issues raised in these writ petitions are connected and
therefore these cases are heard together and disposed of by this
common judgment.
2. Petitioner in WP)).No.545/2011 availed of three loans
from the Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural
Development Bank Ltd., Petitioner in WP(c).No.19988/2010. One
of the controversy in this writ petition is regarding the loan No.
LFS 944 for an amount of ` 7,50,000/- sanctioned for the purpose
of starting a hollow bricks manufacturing unit. Apart from this,
two other loans were also availed of. Default was committed in
respect of all the three loans. Meantime the Central Government
introduced the Agricultural Debt Waver and Debt Relief Scheme,
2008. The aforesaid bank extended the benefit of the scheme in
respect of the latter two loans and waiver as admissible under
the scheme was given.
3. However, petitioner in WP(c).No.545/2011 approached
the Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief Commission claiming waiver
WPC.No. 19988/2010 & anor. 2 :
in respect of loan No. LFS 944 and also the other two loans. The
commission passed order dated 7.8.2008 holding that the
petitioner in WP(c).No.545/2011 is eligible for the benefit of the
scheme and on that basis the liability was ordered to be waived
completely. Long thereafter the bank filed application dated
20.10.2008 seeking review of the aforesaid order invoking the
power of the Commission under Rule 20 of the Debt Relief
Commission Rules. By order dated 11.8.2010, the Commission
allowed the application and cancelled the benefit that was given
in respect of the loan LFS 944.
4. Bank has filed W.P(c).No.19988/2010 challenging the
order dated 7.8.2008 where as the loanee has filed WP(c).
No.545/2011 challenging the order passed by the Commission
allowing the review petition filed by the Bank.
5. As far as the order dated 11.8.2010 allowing the review
petition is concerned the ground urged is that, the review has
been filed beyond the time provided in Rule 20 and that in the
absence of any power conferred to the Commission, it could not
have entertained a belated application. Rule 20 provides for filing
of a petition for review and the time specified for filing such
WPC.No. 19988/2010 & anor. 3 :
application is 60 days. Admittedly, this application is filed beyond
the time specified and the Rules do not confer any power on the
Commission to condone delay. If that be so, the order dated
11.8.2010 allowing the review application filed by the Bank is
liable to be set aside and I do so.
6. In so far as WP(c).No.19988/2010 filed by the Bank is
concerned, if the issue raised by the Bank is that Agricultural Debt
Waver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 is inapplicable to loan LFS
944. The scheme provides for waiver in respect of the direct
agricultural loans, short term production loan and investment
loans which expression are defined in clause 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of
the scheme. A perusal of these provisions show that the scheme
shall apply only in respect of the loans which are availed of for
agricultural purposes or for activities allied to agricultural
purposes. In this case admittedly loan No. LFS 944 was availed of
by the petitioner in WP(c).No.545/2011 for starting a hollow brick
manufacture unit. The purpose of the loan has no connection
whatsoever with agriculture and therefore it is outside the 2008
scheme. If so Commission could not have extended the benefit of
the scheme in so far as the aforesaid loan is concerned. In that
WPC.No. 19988/2010 & anor. 4 :
view of the matter the order dated 7.8.2008 passed by the
Commission to the extent it concerns loan No.LFS 944 availed of
by the petitioner in WP(c).No.545/2011 from the Primary Co-
operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., is liable
to be set aside and I do so.
7. The other contention raised by the petitioner is in
relation to the loan Nos. OL 8742 in respect of which Rs.1 lakh
was availed of and LDS.1890 in respect of which Rs.2 lakhs was
availed of by the petitioner in WP(c).No.545/2011. These loans
were for a period of 10 years and according to the Bank, as per
clause 4.3 of the 2008 scheme the loanee was entitled to debt
waiver of the outstanding amount of ` 1,53,408/- only. It is
contended that by Ext.P2 in WP(c).No.19988/2010 the aforesaid
waiver was already given and therefore the Commission could not
have ordered complete waiver.
8. Clause 4.1(a)(i)of the scheme provides that the amount
eligible for debt waiver, shall comprise of in the case of a short
term production loan, the amount of such loan together with
interest disbursed up to March 31st, 2007 and overdue as on
December 31st, 2007 and remaining unpaid until February 29th,
WPC.No. 19988/2010 & anor. 5 :
2008. Therefore, in the case of loans such as those availed of by
he loanee herein, only such amounts that are over due as on
31.12.2007 and remaining unpaid as on 29.2.2008 is liable to be
waived. It is seen from Ext.P3 order that the amount outstanding
as on 31.12.2007 in respect of the above loans have already
been waived and therefore the Commission was in error in
waiving the loans in its totality. To that extent also order dated
7.8.2008 passed by the Commissioner deserves to be interfered
with and to be quashed and I do so.
The writ petitions are disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/