Omana Vs. The Assistant Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE21T DAY OF NOVEMBER201430TH KARTHIKA, 1936 WP(C).No.34738 of 2010 (N) ---------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. OMANA,KARANGATTU,KALAVAMKODAM P.O., CHERTHALA.

2. JOBY, -DO- -DO- 3. AJITHA,MANAKKATTU, -DO- -DO- 4. THANKAMITHRAN, MADAKKASSERI, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),CHERTHALA-688524.

2. THE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, ALAPPUZHA P.O-688001.

3. THE NODAL OFFICER,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,CHERTHALA BRANCH, CHERTHALA P.O.-688524.

4. THE KALAVAMKODAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.895,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KALAVAMKODAM P.O.,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA-688586. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.R.RANJITH. R2-R3 BY SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN,SC. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2111-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: pk W.P(C) NO.34738 of 2010 (N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1:A TRUE COPY OF THE KISAN CREDIT CARD ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXT.P2:A TRUE COPY OF THE KISAN CREDIT CARD OF THE2D PETITIONER. EXT.P3:A TRUE COPY OF THE KISAN CREDIT CARD OF THE3D PETITIONER. EXT.P4:A TRUE COPY OF THE KISAN CREDIT CARD ISSUED TO THE4H PETITIONER. EXT.P5:A TRUE COPY OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEBT WAIVER AND DEBT RELIEF SCHEME,2008 REPRODUCED AND CIRCULATED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED NIL. EXT.P6:A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER DATED277.2009. EXT.P7:A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE2D PETITIONER DATED277.2009. EXT.P8:A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE3D PETITIONER DATED157.2009. EXT.P9:A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE4H PETITIONER DATED277.2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE pk K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

===================== W.P.(C) No.34738 of 2010 - N ====================== Dated this the 21st day of November, 2014

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are all persons, who have availed Kissan Credit Card loans, from the 4th respondent Bank. The petitioners' claim benefit under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme-2008. The petitioners are persons, who have approached the grievance authority under the Scheme; the Nodal Officer of the District Co-operative Bank, Alappuzha, who also declined the claims made as per Exts.P6, P7, P8 and P9.

2. With respect to the petitioners 1 to 3, the petitioners have respectively availed of the Kissan Credit Card loan on 09.01.2006, 09.01.2006 and 28.12.2005 respectively. Admittedly the Kissan Credit Card loan is a cash credit scheme, wherein the petitioners 1 to 3 were given limit of withdrawal of Rs.2,00,000/- and there is no specific monthly repayment instalment prescribed. The only condition is that the cash credit would be available for three years and has to W.P.(C) No.34738 of 2010 - N2be settled within the three year period.

3. The contention of the 2nd respondent is that as per the scheme, produced at Ext.P5, relief is available to the extent of the overdue amounts as on 31.12.2007 and which remain unpaid till 29.02.2008. The loans, which are entitled to the relief, also are only those loans disbursed before 31.03.2007. Admittedly all the aforesaid loans have been availed before 31.03.2007. The specific contention raised on behalf of the respondent Bank is that with respect to the 1st and 2nd petitioners, the loan would become overdue only on 08.01.2009 and with respect to the 3rd petitioner only on 27.12.2008. In such circumstance, the loan amounts being not overdue as on 31.12.2007; cannot be considered as remaining unpaid on 29.02.2008 and hence, would not be entitled to relief under the Scheme of 2008. Even looking at the scheme, this Court finds that the said grounds are perfectly correct and sustainable.

4. The pass-books produced would show that the limit sanctioned as cash credit to the petitioners 1 to 3 is W.P.(C) No.34738 of 2010 - N3Rs.2,00,000/- each, in all the aforesaid loans and the outstanding amounts have never exceeded that limit, making the loan overdue; atleast to that extent. No particular repayment schedule is also indicated going by the pass-books.

5. Further the scheme, produced at Ext.P5 indicates that the relief is available to 'Direct Agricultural Loans' which loans are categorised into 'Short Term Production Loans' and 'Investment Loans' (Clause 3). Admittedly, the petitioners have not availed any investment loans. A Direct Agricultural loan availed under the Kissan Credit Card is also entitled to relief under Explanation 4 to Clause 3; but subject to these (sic:Ext.P5) guidelines. 'Short Term Production Loan' as per clause 3.2 is a loan given in connection with the raising of crops which is to be re-paid within 18 months. The petitioners' loans, admittedly are for three years falling outside such purview. Nor is there any overdue as on 31.12.2007, which remained unpaid as on 29.02.2008. In such circumstance, interference cannot be W.P.(C) No.34738 of 2010 - N4made to the orders passed by the Nodal Officer in the case of the petitioners 1 to 3.

6. With respect to the 4th petitioner, the loan is availed of on 09.08.2004. The loan would have become overdue on 31.12.2007, since, the three year period would be over on 08.08.2007. However, the 4th petitioner is not seen to have made any application within the stipulated time to the grievance authority. The counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent very clearly states that the list of eligible farmers are to be published by the Primary Society on or before 20.06.2008 and settlement of grievance, was to be on or before 31.01.2009. The 4th petitioner had filed Ext.P9 only on 27.07.2009 after the date stipulated for settlement of grievances. In such circumstance, the 4th petitioner also cannot be considered at this point of time. In any event, the disability as to the 4th petitioner too, having availed of a loan, beyond the repayment period of 18 months, also stares him in his face.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on W.P.(C) No.34738 of 2010 - N5Sivaramakurup N. v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others [2011(3) ILR1. That was a case in which a Division Bench of this Court declared that the threshold eligibility of a borrower to be granted a loan or a restriction on the amounts so entitled, would not regulate the relief under the scheme. In other words merely because a borrower was granted amounts as loans, far in excess of his eligibility, would not disentitle the borrower from the relief under the scheme of 2008. That question does not arise herein. The petitioners have been found to be disentitled as per the terms of the scheme itself. To sum up; the claims are devoid of merit, going by the terms of the scheme of 2008 and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Parties shall suffer their respective costs. Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // true copy // P.A To Judge.