IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3266 of 2010(G)
1. VASU, S/O.CHAMAN, KIZHAKKEKALAM,
... Petitioner
2. P.BALACHANDRAN, S/O.PAZHANIMALA,
3. P.GANGADHARAN, S/O.PAKAN, PERINCHERRY,
4. P.BAVADAS, S/O.PAZHANIMALA,
5. P.PRAKASAN, S/O.PAZHANIMALA. DO. DO.
6. P.SASIDHARAN, S/O.PAZHANIMALA. DO. DO.
7. SURESH, S/O.RAGHAVAN, PERUMCHERRY,
8. MOHAMMED ALI, S/O.JABBAR, METTUVALAN,
9. K.VIJAYAN, S/O.KUTTAN, PERUMCHERRY,
10. SUDEVAN, S/O.CHAMY, PERUMCHERRY,
11. SPINJUSHA, W/O.MANIKANDAN,
12. M.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.MAYANKUTTY,
13. V.NANDAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN,
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
3. NABARD, PONNIAM ROAD, P.B.NO.5613,
4. THE TATTAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
5. THE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL OFFICER,
6. THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE
For Petitioner :SRI.S.EASWARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :02/02/2010
O R D E R
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J
...........................................
WP(C).NOs.3266, 3277 & 3295 OF 2010
............................................
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in these writ petitions are Agriculturists who are
cultivating paddy and coconut in their respective agricultural lands.
According to them, they are also conducting diary and poultry farms in
a small scale. For their agricultural purpose, they had applied for and
obtained loans from the fourth respondent, Bank. However, they allege
that due to reasons beyond their control, the crops failed and
consequently they suffered huge losses. Therefore, they have not been
able to pay off the loans availed by them. The petitioners claim that
they are agriculturists who are entitled to the benefit of the Agricultural
Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 which has been produced
as Ext.P1. Therefore, they had submitted request for being granted the
benefits of the said Scheme. However, the 5th respondent rejected their
applications without assigning any reasons. Therefore, the petitioners
challenged the action of the 5th respondent before this court in WP(C)
21746 of 2009. The said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P5
Wpc 3266/10 & conn. cases 2
judgment setting aside the orders rejecting the applications of the
petitioners and directing a reconsideration of their applications in
accordance with the Scheme, Ext.P1.
2. Thereafter, the judgment of this court was communicated to
the fifth respondent along with a copy of the petition. However, in spite
of the directions contained in Ext.P5 judgment, the fifth respondent did
not consider the applications of the petitioner. Instead, he forwarded
the applications of the petitioner to the General Manager, Palakkad
District Co-operative Bank for necessary action. The sixth respondent
has thereafter issued orders rejecting the applications of the petitioner.
The said proceedings are under challenge in these writ petitions.
3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, as per paragraph
10.2 of Ext.P1 Scheme, the Grievance Redressal Officer is the
authority competent to receive applications seeking benefits of the
Scheme. The power to pass orders on such applications is also
conferred on the said authority. Therefore, the procedure adopted by
the fifth respondent of forwarding the applications to the sixth
respondent is submitted to be illegal. Consequently, the orders passed
Wpc 3266/10 & conn. cases 3
by the sixth respondent rejecting the applications of the petitioners are
also submitted to be unsustainable. The reasons stated in the
application for rejecting the petitioner’s request are also submitted to be
wrong and unsustainable.
4. I have heard Mr.S.Easwaran, who appears for the petitioners
and the learned Government Pleader also. Clause 10.2 of Ext.P1
Scheme reads as follows:-
“10.2. Every lending institution shall appoint
one or more Grievance Redressal Officers for
each State(having regard to the number of
branches in that State). The name and address
of the Grievance Redressal Officer concerned
shall be displayed in each branch of the
lending institution. The Grievance Redressal
Officer shall have the authority to receive
representations from aggrieved farmers and
pass appropriate orders thereon. The order o f
the Grievance Redressal Officer shall be
final”.
5. A reading of the above provision makes it clear that the fifth
respondent is the authority to consider and pass orders on the request of
Wpc 3266/10 & conn. cases 4
the petitioners for deciding whether they are entitled to the benefits of
the Scheme. However, instead of passing orders on the request of the
petitioners by himself, he forwarded the request to the sixth respondent,
without any authority. Since the sixth respondent had no authority to
pass orders on the request of the petitioner, the orders so passed by him
are unsustainable.
6. In view of the above, the proceedings of the 5th and 6th
respondents evidenced in these writ petitions by Ext.P6(a) to (m), P7(a)
to (l) and P8(a) to (l) are quashed. The fifth respondent is directed to
consider the request of the petitioners in accordance with law and to
pass appropriate orders thereon as directed in Ext.P5 judgment, as
expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
lgk