IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18224 of 2008(T)
1. AGENCY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ACQUACULTURE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NOYAL FEMANDEZ, MANAGING PARTNER,
... Respondent
2. KERALA LOK AYUKTA REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.JOY
For Respondent :SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :24/06/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.18244 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The 1st respondent herein availed a loan of
Rs.5,42,920/- for the purpose of cultivation in a land
having an extent of 8 acres in Survey No.142 of
Kalliyasheri Village, Kannur. The land had been
mortgaged by the petitioner as a security for the
repayment of the loan. The loan was to be repaid in
instalments with 15% interest over a period of 5
years. The petitioner had extended financial
assistance under the Kerala Fisheries Development
Project for Prawn Culture (KFDPPC). The project
period expired on 31.3.1998. The petitioner took
steps to recall the loan given to different Shrimp
Farmers. Many of them represented to the
Government for waiver of interest. By Ext.P1
Government Order dated 28.10.2004, Government
ordered waiver of penal interest upto 30.9.2004 and
W.P.(C).No.18244 of 2008
:: 2 ::
reduced the interest rate from 15% to 8% per annum.
Ext.P1 was again modified by Ext.P2 Government
Order dated 15.6.2005 providing for full waiver of
interest and penal interest up to 30.9.2004 and
simple interest to be levied at 8% with effect from
1.10.2004.
2. It is common case that the 1st respondent
had repaid an amount of Rs.1,35,001/- by 5.1.1996.
Remaining amounts have not been paid.
3. In the meanwhile, the land belonging to
the 1st respondent was acquired for the power project
at Kannur. Compensation assessed under the Land
Acquisition Act was then deposited in the reference
court. It seems that the 1st respondent required the
said amount to be remitted. It came about that the
compensation amount came to be deposited in the
Indian Overseas Bank, Thalassery Branch in the
account of the Sub Judge, Thalassery as evidenced by
Ext.P3. Thus, an amount of Rs.10,95,854/- is lying in
W.P.(C).No.18244 of 2008
:: 3 ::
fixed deposit at the Thalassery Branch of the Indian
Overseas Bank.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the deposit effected in the bank is in
favour of the petitioner and therefore, such deposit of
the Land Acquisition Compensation Amount due to
the petitioner will have to be treated as one in
discharge of the liability which the 1st respondent had
incurred with the petitioner. The contention is
therefore, that the benefit of Ext.P2 Government
Order cannot be extended to the 1st respondent, as it
contemplates a waiver of interest and penal interest
only in relation to cases where the default in
repayment had continued upto the date of Ext.P2
order and not in cases where repayment had already
been effected and the loan account closed on the
date of Ext.P2.
5. The 1st respondent approached the Lok
Ayukta in Complaint No.782/07. Taking note of the
W.P.(C).No.18244 of 2008
:: 4 ::
fact that Ext.P2 order would otherwise be applicable
to the case of the complainant, the Lok Ayukta
passed an order directing the compensation amount
due to the complainant, lying in Fixed Deposit be
returned to the complainant on maturity of the fixed
deposit, after retaining the amount due to the
petitioner herein in terms of Ext.R1(b) filed by the
petitioner herein before the Lok Ayukta showing the
calculation of the amount due from the 1st respondent
in terms of Ext.P2 Government Order. This order of
the Lok Ayukta has been challenged in this writ
petition.
6. I heard Mr.C.A.Joy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.G.S.Reghunath,learned counsel for
the 1st respondent.
7. The applicability of Ext.P2 Government
Order insofar as it offers waiver of interest and penal
interest up to 30.9.2004 as such cannot be disputed
by the petitioner, nor is the 1st respondent’s eligibility
W.P.(C).No.18244 of 2008
:: 5 ::
to be covered by Ext.P2 Government Order liable to
be disputed. The petitioner’s contention seems to be
that the benefit of Ext.P2 Government Order cannot
be extended to the 1st respondent, because amounts
belonging to the 1st respondent by way of Land
Acquisition compensation was deposited in the bank,
in favour of the petitioner prior to the date of
acquisition. In other words, the petitioner contends
that there has been, in fact, a repayment of the loan
availed by the 1st respondent, prior to the date of
Ext.P2 and consequently Ext.P2 would not be
applicable to the 1st respondent. I am not inclined to
accept this contention. Firstly, the deposit of the land
acquisition compensation in the bank as evidenced
by Ext.P3, cannot be treated as one made specifically
for the purpose of repayment of the loan account
held by the 1st respondent with the petitioner. There
is nothing in Ext.P3 to show that the amount was
deposited under the account of the petitioner.
W.P.(C).No.18244 of 2008
:: 6 ::
8. Even otherwise, I am unable to accept the
case of the petitioner regarding the applicability of
Ext.P2 Government Order to the 1st respondent. When
Ext.P2 Government Order directed that there will be
complete waiver of interest and penal interest for the
period up to 1.10.2004, it will be wholly in-equitable
not to apply the benefit of the Government Order to
the 1st respondent, who is also otherwise
comprehended by the said Government Order,
merely because the land acquisition compensation
amount came into the hands of the 1st respondent
during that period. There is nothing on record to
show that the 1st respondent had voluntarily
deposited adequate amount with the petitioner with
an intention to close the entire loan account, thereby
resulting in a severance of the relationship between
the petitioner and the 1st respondent on the date of
Ext.P2.
W.P.(C).No.18244 of 2008
:: 7 ::
In these circumstances, I do not find any
reason to disagree with the view taken by the Upa
Lok Ayukta in this case. I find no grounds to interfere
with the impugned order. Writ petition is accordingly
dismissed. It is made clear that the petitioner is
entitled to the amount shown as due under Ext.R1(d)
with interest at the applicable rate on the said
amount till today.
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//