BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25/11/2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI
W.P.(MD)No.5710 of 2009
T.Vilashini ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary,
Cooperative Food and Consumer
Department,
Secretariate,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Joint Registrar,
Cooperative Societies,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Special Officer,
Kanyakumari District Central Bank Ltd.,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
4.The Special Officer,
Y-29, Panaikulam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank
Ltd.,
Panaikulam, Kanyakumari District.
5.The Secretary,
Y-29, Panaikulam Primary Agricultural
Cooperative Bank Ltd.,
Panaikulam,
Kanyakumari District. : Respondents
PRAYER
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue of writ of Mandamus directing the 5th respondent waiving the petitioner's
agricultural loan viz., Agricultural Loan No.271, dated 17.02.2006 consequently
to direct the 5th respondent to refund the Agricultural Jewel loan amount to the
petitioner by following the circular issued the 3rd respondent in
Na.Ka.No.95/06-07/C-1, dated 11.07.2006 and pass further orders.
!For Petitioner ... Mr.N.S.Ramakrishna Dass
^For R1 and R2 ... Mr.R.Janaki Ramulu
Special Government Pleader
For 3rd Respondent ... Mr.Pala Ramasamy
Government Pleader
For R4 and R5 ... Mr.G.Manivannan
:ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Janaki
Ramulu, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2
and Mr.Pala Ramasamy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd
respondent and Mr.G.Manivannan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4
and 5.
2.The writ petitioner is stated to have availed a loan for agricultural
purposes, in Agricultural Loan No.271, dated 17.02.2006 to the extent of
Rs.25,000/- and the writ petition is filed for direction to waive the said loan.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would submit that
the loan has been completely discharged by the petitioner by paying entire
amount and the account has been closed. In fact, the document, which has been
produced by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent in Court shows in clear
terms that the loan has been obtained for the construction of the house and not
for agricultural purposes.
4.In such circumstances, it is made clear that having paid the entire
amount under the loan, the present writ petition is filed for a direction to
waive so as to enable to get back the amount, which has already been cleared. It
is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that the petitioner has given a representation to the 2nd respondent,
the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kanyakumari District, dated
18.11.2008 a direction is given to the 2nd respondent to consider the
petitioner’s representation and pass appropriate orders, the petitioner will be
satisfied.
5.Considering the above facts and circumstances and taking note of the
fact that it has been cleared and the categorical stand of the 4th respondent
that the loan obtained is not for agricultural purpose, the writ petition stands
disposed of, directing to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated
18.11.2009 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law,
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
No costs.
er
To,
1.The Secretary,
Cooperative Food and Consumer
Department,
Secretariate,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Joint Registrar,
Cooperative Societies,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Special Officer,
Kanyakumari District Central Bank Ltd.,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
4.The Special Officer,
Y-29, Panaikulam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank
Ltd.,
Panaikulam, Kanyakumari District.
5.The Secretary,
Y-29, Panaikulam Primary Agricultural
Cooperative Bank Ltd.,
Panaikulam,
Kanyakumari District.
6.The Special Government Pleader,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.