Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013 11TH MAGHA 193 WP(C).No. 23375 of 2010 (V) --------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- M.V.MATHEW, MAZHUVANCHERRY HOUSE, POIKKATTUSSERY, CHENGAMANDY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, ATHANI BRANCH, ERNAKULAM DIST ”
001.
2. LEAD DISTRICT MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM ”
001.
3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ”
001.
4. THE CHAIRMAN, NABARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ”
001. R1 & R2 BY ADV SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 23375 of 2010 (V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THE BANK DATED 23 6.2008 SHOWING WITHDRAWALS, DEPOSIT AND BALANCE. EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10 5.2008. EXT.P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEBT WAIVER AND DEBT RELIEF SCHEME 2008 EXT.P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19 11.08. EXT.P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24 5.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J ........................................ W.P.(C).23375/2010 .............................................. Dated this the 31st day of January, 2013 JUDGMENT Petitioner availed of a loan from the respondent Bank and according to him, loan was availed for agricultural purposes. He claimed the benefit of waiver as provided under Ext.P3 Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. That was declined by the Bank. It is in these circumstances, challenging the order passed by the Bank the writ petition is filed.
2. It is evident from Ext.P5 communication issued by the Bank that the loan availed of by the petitioner was for the purchase of transport vehicles. It is stated that it was accordingly that the petitioner purchased a Mahindra Tipper vehicle.
3. In my view, even if the vehicle purchased by the petitioner was used for transporting agriculture produce, the loan availed of for the purchase of the vehicles, does not get the character of an agricultural loan. Therefore, Bank is W.P.(C).23375/10 2 perfectly justified in its stand that the loan availed of by the petitioner is outside Ext.P3 Scheme. If that be so, rejection of the petitioner's claim for the benefit of Ext.P3 Scheme does not call for any interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mrcs /true copy/ sd/- P.A. To Judge