IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2712 of 2010(L)
1. THOMAS PAUL, AGED 68 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KEERAMPARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
... Respondent
2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
4. NABARD, KERALA REGIONAL OFFICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
For Respondent :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :05/01/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 2712 OF 2010
=====================
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner, his deceased wife and his son had availed of
three loans from the respondent Bank. Default was committed,
and while so, Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme,
2008 was introduced by the Central Government. Petitioner
applied for the benefit, but however, that was declined by the
Bank by Ext.P3 series of orders on the ground that the Bank had
by its resolution dated 27/3/2007 had renewed the loan for the
period from 01/04/2007 to 31/3/2008. The case of the petitioner
is that he or the other loanees had not applied for any renewal
and that the unilateral renewal of the loan by the Bank cannot
deprive the loanees of the benefit of the scheme referred to
above.
2. Bank has not placed anything on record to indicate
that the renewal of the loan was on any application or other
request made by the loanees. If that be so, the question is
whether the unilateral decision of the Bank will deprive the
loanees of the benefit of the Waiver Scheme referred to above. It
WPC No. 2712/10
:2 :
is seen that an identical case came up for consideration before
this Court in WP(C) No.32969/2008 and by Ext.P4 judgment, this
Court held as follows:
5. Then, the only question is whether the
alleged renewal of loan granted by the Bank as
mentioned in Ext.P5 could deprive the petitioner
of the benefit of Ext.P3. Bank has no case that
the renewal was on an application made by the
petitioner. Further, it is also seen from Ext.P1,
the loan agreement, that the period of the loan
was three years. If that be the case, the period of
the loan expired only in 2009, in which case,
there was no reason or necessity for the Bank to
have renewed the loan in 2007. If so, the fact
that the loan has been unilaterally renewed as
stated by the Bank can be no reason to deny the
petitioner the benefit of Ext.P3. For that reason, I
am not in a position to upheld Exts.P5 and P6
where the only reason stated for denying the
benefit of Ext.P3 is the alleged renewal of the
loan.
6. Therefore, Exts.P5 and P6 referred to above
will stand set aside and the 1st respondent is
directed to reconsider the application made by
the petitioner for the benefit of Ext.P3 ignoring
the alleged renewal of the loan for the period
commencing from 01/04/2007. This shall be done,
as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4
weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.
3. A reading of the above shows that the issue raised by
the petitioner is fully covered in his favour and has to be
answered in his favour. Therefore, I set aside Ext.P3 series of
orders rejecting the application made by the petitioner for the
WPC No. 2712/10
:3 :
benefit of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme,
2008 and direct the 1st respondent Bank to pass fresh orders on
the application made by the petitioner for the benefit of the
Scheme. Orders shall be passed at any rate within 6 weeks of
production of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp
