Ramandeep Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 10 March, 2009

C.W.P No. 3952 of 2009                                 -1-



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                 CHANDIGARH


                                      C.W.P No. 3952 of 2009
                                      Decided On : 10.03.2009

Ramandeep Singh
                                                       ...Petitioner
            versus

Union of India and others
                                                       ...Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT


Present : Mr. I. P. Singh, Advocate,
          for the petitioner.


SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner, who asserts himself to be an

agriculturist, seeks quashing of the order dated 02.07.2008

(Annexure P-5), whereby respondent NO.2-the Kapurthala

Central Cooperative Bank and its Branch Manager-respondent

No.3, have declined to extend the benefit of Agriculture Debt

Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 to the petitioner.

Relying upon the contents of the Cash Credit

Agreement (Annexure P-2) and the Mortgage Deed (Annexure

P-3), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was in fact granted loan facility for agricultural

purposes, namely, repair and purchase of agriculture machinery

and equipment, purchase of pesticides and seeds etc. He also

relies upon a Division Bench order of this Court dated November
C.W.P No. 3952 of 2009 -2-

08, 2008, passed in C.W.P no. 18262 of 2008 (Charandeep

Singh vs. Union of India), wherein it was held that such like

loan facilities are meant for agricultural purposes only.

In Charandeep Singh’s case (supra), the writ

petitioner was brother of the present petitioner. The claim of the

said writ petitioner regarding the benefit of Agriculture Debt

Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, was also denied by the

respondent-Bank on the identical grounds. This Court having

accepted his claim, set aside the order vide which the claim was

declined.

Having regard to the fact that a Division Bench of this

Court has already expressed its views in some what identical

circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ

petition with a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to reconsider

the petitioner’s claim for extension of the benefit of Agriculture

Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, in the light of the

judgment dated 08.11.2008 passed in Charandeep Singh’s

case (supra) and decide the same as early as possible.

Disposed of.

MARCH 10, 2009                               (SURYA KANT)
shalini                                          JUDGE