The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order dated 11.11.2016 made in Na.Ka.No.223/2016/Ka on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant crop loan waiver to the petitioner's agricultural jewel loan bearing No.235 obtained from the third respondent.
2.According to the petitioner, the petitioner availed a loan from the third respondent society for agricultural crop loan. The third respondent society sanctioned a sum of Rs.56,000/- (Rupees Fifty Six Thousand Only) towards agricultural jewel loan after pledging the petitioner's gold ornaments in the society. The petitioner repaid a sum of Rs.9,200/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Two Hundred Only) on 30.03.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner could not repay the balance amount, due to failure of monsoon and loss of crops. The Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.50, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CC1) Department dated 23.05.2016 granting the waiver of outstanding crop loan for medium term (agriculture) and long term loan issued to small and marginal farmers by the Cooperative societies/Banks as on 31.03.2016. The third respondent has not considered the request of the petitioner for waiver of the above loan amount under the above said Government order. Then, the petitioner made a representation to the second respondent. Based on the report of the third respondent, the second respondent also rejected the petitioner's request by letter dated 11.11.2016. Challenging the said impugned order, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition before this Court.
3. The Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has availed the agricultural loan from the third respondent society. Hence, the impugned order is contrary to the order passed by the Government. Hence, the relief prayed for by the petitioner may be considered and the same will be granted to the petitioner.
4.Mr.V.Selvaraj, Additional Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner availed the loan for the family expenses and the contention of the petitioner that the said loan has been sanctioned for the agricultural purposes is not correct. The record also shows that the petitioner has availed only for the family expenses. In the form also, the petitioner made the declaration that the said amount has been borrowed for the purpose of family expenses. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that the said amount was sanctioned only for the family expenses and not for the agricultural purposes. Hence, the claim made by the petitioner is liable to be rejected.
5. It is seen from the record produced by the respondents that the petitioner has borrowed the aforesaid loan amount for the purpose of family expenses and the same is not for the agricultural crop loan. But the petitioner has disputed the said fact. Therefore, this court cannot go into the disputed fact under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner aggrieved by the said order, it is open to the petitioner to approach before the appellate authority or revisional authority under the provisions of the act, if so advised.
6. The Writ Petition is dismissed with the above direction. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
13.06.2017 lok D.KRISHNAKUMAR. J, lok To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department Fort.St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.
3. The President, TYSPL 57, Thirukkalappur Primary Agriculture Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Thirukkalappur, Ariyalur District.
W.P.No.9933 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.10925 of 2017 13.06.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in