IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36787 of 2008(D)
1. T.A.VISWANATHAN, S/O.ANDI EZHUTHACHAN,
... Petitioner
2. AMMINI, W/O.LATE KRISHNAN, PERUMPALLOM,
3. AMMINI, NOMINEE OF LATE KRISHNAN,
4. T.A.PRASAD, S/O.ANANTHA NARAYANAN,
5. THULASSIDAS, S/O SUKUMARAN,VAVUKODEKALAM
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
3. NABARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
5. THE TATHAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
6. THE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL OFFICER,
7. THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE
For Petitioner :SRI.S.EASWARAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :10/08/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.36787 of 2008
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 10th day of August, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners submit that by Exts.P1 to P5, they had availed
of loans for different purposes. It is stated that these loans are
eligible for the benefit of waiver as contemplated in Ext.P6, the
Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. However,
the applications made by the petitioners for availing of the benefit
of Ext.P6 Scheme have been rejected by Ext.P11 series of orders
issued by the Grievance Redressal Officer. These orders are one line
orders to the effect that the loans availed of by the petitioners are
not covered by Ext.P6 Scheme. It is thereupon that this writ petition
is filed challenging Ext.P11 series of orders and for a direction to
the respondents to extend them the benefit of Ext.P6 Scheme
referred to above.
2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Bank also.
3. Exts.P1 to P5 are the loan applications made by the
petitioners which show that the purposes shown in Exts.P1 to P3 are
agricultural. In Exts.P4 purposes shown are milk vending and
WP(C) No.36787/2008
-2-
digging of well, and the purposes in Ext.P5 are milk vending and
poultry. Primafacie, digging of well and poultry are covered by
Ext.P6 Scheme. Therefore, rejection of the requests for the benefit
of Ext.P6 Scheme as per Ext.P11 series of orders does not appear to
be correct. The 6th respondent necessarily, should have considered
the eligibility of the petitioners to avail of the benefit of Ext.P6
Scheme with reference to the purposes for which the loans have
been availed of, and the various clauses of Ext.P6 providing for
eligibility of waiver. This having not been done by the Grievance
Redressal Officer, I quash Ext.P11 series of orders and direct the 6th
respondent to reconsider the applications made by the petitioners
for the benefit of Ext.P6 Scheme.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that in
so far as the 5th petitioner is concerned, recovery proceedings have
been initiated against him. Taking into account the fact that the
matter is directed to be reconsidered, it is directed that recovery in
so far as the 5th petitioner is concerned will be deferred till a
decision is taken as directed above.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg