The petitioner is aggrieved with the denial of relief under Ext.P1 Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. The petitioner had approached the Grievance Redressal Mechanism provided under the Scheme in which, there was a rejection order. Without challenging the same, the writ petitioner filed a representation before the Joint Registrar (General) and obtained a direction from this Court to consider the same. Ext.P3 is the order passed thereon. A reading of Ext.P3 would indicate that the loan was availed as an 'Agricultural Gold loan' giving security of gold. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, what is indicated in Ext.P1 Scheme is only loans availed by farmers for agricultural purposes and there is no reference to the security as such. A gold loan would also be entitled to relief if the same is for agricultural purposes, seems to be the contention.
3. It is to be noticed that Ext.P1 speaks of “Direct Agricultural Loans” which are categorized as 'Short Term Production' loans and 'Investment' loans. The 'Short Term Production' loan is a crop loan which has to be availed in connection with the raising of crops and which is to be repaid within 18 months. The 'Investment' loans are given for investment in direct agricultural activities, to the meeting outlays as laid down in the Scheme. The petitioner has availed neither a 'Short Term Production' loan nor an 'Investment' loan.
4. Going by the terms of the Scheme, this Court is not convinced that gold loans would be covered under the Scheme, especially since the petitioner does not specify in the writ petition as to what was the purpose for which the loan was availed but for merely asserting that it is for agricultural purpose. A crop loan or an investment loan availed by an agriculturist would definitely be on declared intention as to the purpose to which the loan amounts would be applied.
5. The petitioner also has not approached this Court within the proper time since Ext.P3 is dated 30.03.2013 and the writ petition is filed after more than a year on 11.03.2014.Ext.P1 Scheme in fact provides for a redressal mechanism and the petitioner as per the averments and going by the text of Ext.P3, has approached the said Officer and suffered a rejection. The said order is not produced herein. Ext.P3 also declines consideration, for reason of the rejection by the Grievance Redressal Officer having acquired finality. I have called the Judges papers of the earlier Writ Petition filed. W.P.(C).21842 of 2012 which also did not challenge the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Mrcs //True Copy//