Babu Kuriakose vs Union Of India & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 20703 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
 TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 11894 OF 2010
PETITIONER/S:

               BABU KURIAKOSE, AGED 44 YEARS,
               S/O.KURIAKOSE, KATTUPARAYIL HOUSE,, CHAKKAMPUZHA
               P.O., RAMAPURAM, PALA.
               BY ADVS.
               SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
               SRI.DIPU JAMES
               SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
               SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN

RESPONDENT/S:

    1          UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
               SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,, CENTRAL
               SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI - 1.
    2          SECRETARY MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE
               GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT,, NEW
               DELHI - 1.
    3          STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
               SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE,, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
    4          STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
               REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING
               DIRECTOR,, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM.
    5          STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
               VALVOOR BRANCH REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,,
               VALVOOR P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM IDUKKI DIST.
               BY ADV SRI.M.N.MANMADAN, CGC

        THIS    WRIT   PETITION     (CIVIL)    HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION       ON   05.10.2021,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                             -2-
W.P.(C). No. 11894 of 2010



                                 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                                ==============================================================

                               W.P.(C) No.11894 of 2010 -J
                      ===================================================================================

                    Dated this the 5th day of October, 2021

                                                JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:

"i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the petitioner is entitled for full benefit under Ext.P1 Agricultural Debts Relief Scheme, 2008 declared by the respondents 1 and 2;

ii) to call for the records which led to the issuance of Exts.P2, P4, P5, and P7 and to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, quashing the same;

iii) to issue such other writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to grant, in the nature course of the proceedings."

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner

is entitled for the benefit of Ext.P1 Agricultural Debt Waiver

W.P.(C). No. 11894 of 2010

and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. The definite case of the

petitioner is that the Bank has not considered the same and

issued recovery notices as evident by Exts.P2, P4, P5. In

addition to that, the Bank issued Ext.P7 in which it is stated

that the petitioner is not eligible for Ext.P1 scheme without

mentioning any reason. Aggrieved by the same, the writ

petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Standing Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 and also

heard the learned Government Pleader also.

4. The definite case of the petitioner is that he is

entitled to the benefit of Ext.P1 scheme as per clause 4.1(a)(iii)

and clause 4.1(b)(iii). The learned Standing Counsel submitted

that the petitioner renewed the loan on 20.03.2007 and

therefore, in the light of clause 4.1(a)(i), the petitioner is not

entitled to the benefit of Ext.P1 scheme.

W.P.(C). No. 11894 of 2010

5. I perused Ext.P7. It is not a speaking order. The

petitioner has got a definite case that he is entitled to the

benefit of Ext.P1 scheme even though the Bank has got a

different opinion. I think the matter to be considered by a

competent officer of respondent Nos.4 and 5, after giving an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, this writ

petition can be disposed of directing the Bank to hear the

petitioner and consider the matter as to whether Ext.P1

scheme is applicable to the case of the petitioner and take

appropriate decision in accordance to law.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the

following manner:

1. Ext.P7 is set aside.

2. The competent officer of respondents 4 and 5 will hear the petitioner and thereafter will decide whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Ext.P1 scheme.

W.P.(C). No. 11894 of 2010

3. The above exercise should be completed by the officer concerned, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

4. Till the final orders are passed, all recovery steps initiated against the petitioner are kept in abeyance. Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE das

W.P.(C). No. 11894 of 2010

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11894/2010

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF AGRICULTURAL DEBT RELIEF SCHEME 2008 DECLARED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.03.2009 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD.10.04.2009 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF LETTER DTD.02.02.2010 EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF LETTER DTD.04.03.2010 EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD.09.03.2010 EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF LETTER DTD.09.03.2010