IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.45929 OF 2011(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
H.P.RAVIKUMAR S/O LATE H.G.PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O UDAYA RAVI ESTATE HUTHANAHALLY DEVALADAKERE POST SAKALESHPURA TQ.
(BY MR.NATARAJ C.D. ADV. FOR MR.PRUTHIVI WODEYAR, ADV.) AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSRY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NEW DELHI REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY 2. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICE SHASTRI BHAVAN NEW DELHI REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 3. STATE LEVEL BANKES COMMITTEE V FLOOR, GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE – 560 009 REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER 4. COFFEE BOARD … PETITIONER NO.1 DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 1 REPT. BY ITS CHAIRMAN 5. FEDERAL BANK LTD SUVARNA ARCADE B.M.ROAD HASSAN – 573 201 REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
6. ASSET RECONSTRUCTION CO. INDIA LTD., TIME TOWER, 9TH FLOOR KAMALA MILLS COMPOUND SENAPATI BOPAT MARG LOWER PAREL (W) MUMBAI MAHARASTRA 400 013 REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
… RESPONDENTS (BY MR.A.KRISHNA ADV. FOR R1 & R2 MR.RAMACHANDRAN ADV. FOR MR.M.R.C.RAVI ADV. FOR R4 MR.G.S.BHAT ADV. FOR R5 MR.FRANCIS XAVIER ADV. FOR R6 MR.M.MOHAN RAO ADV. FOR R3) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO R5 TO EXTEND THE BENEFIT UNDER CDRP SCHEME 2010 VIDE ANN-A TO AN EXTENT OF RS.58 LAKHS TO RESCHEDULE THE REMAINING AMOUNT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Nataraj C.D. for Mr.Pruthvi Wodeyar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.A.Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr.Ramachandran for Mr.M.R.C.Ravi, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
Mr.G.S.Bhat, learned counsel for respondent No.5. Mr.Francis Xavier, learned counsel for respondent No.6.
Mr.Mohan Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 5 to extend the benefit under the CDRP scheme, 2010 to an extent of Rs.58 lakhs and to reschedule the remaining amount.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the petitioner borrowed a loan of Rs.41,50,900/- along with other co-obligates from respondent No.5-Bank. The Central Government introduced the scheme under the Coffee Debt Relief Package for the upliftment of the small coffee growers. It is the case of the petitioner that in the aforesaid scheme, the petitioner was entitled for the benefit of Rs.58 Lakhs and remaining amount shall be rescheduled. The respondent No.5-Bank on the one hand had extended the benefit to a tune of Rs.31 Lakhs to the petitioner and on the other hand, has withdrawn the benefit based on the report of the Chartered Accountant and has assigned the recovery process in favour of respondent No.6. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid decision with regard to entitlement of the petitioner with regard to the relief under the scheme is taken unilaterally without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the scheme. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that suitable action in accordance with law shall be taken after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
6. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the report given by the company Charted Accountant dated 07.05.2011 is quashed. However, the competent authority is granted liberty to issue notice to the petitioner and to afford an opportunity of hearing to him with regard to the claim of the petitioner for his entitlement under the scheme and to decide the same by a speaking order. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS