The petitioners are aggrieved with communication at Ext.P7, by which respondent Bank from whom the petitioners have availed loan, had rejected the grievance with respect to the non-consideration of the petitioners under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. The implementation circular of the Scheme of 2008 is produced at Ext.P1 and the scheme itself in the vernacular is produced at Ext.P2. 2. Going by the scheme, as per clause 3.1, two types of loans are entitled to relief; one a short term loan and the other scheme loan. The 'short term loans' are defined as loans of which repayment is confined to 18 months, as per clause 3.2. The scheme loans are defined under clause 3.3 are 'investment loans'. Even according to the petitioners, the loan availed by them was Kissan Cash Credit loans, which are also covered under clause 4 of the scheme.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner had availed of Kissan Cash Credit loans having a re-payment period of three years. That alone would disentitle them from consideration under the scheme, since they do not come under the category of short term loans having 18 months re- payment. Further, it is to be noticed that the scheme itself, grants relief to the extend of the defaulted amounts as on 31.12.2007, remaining unpaid on 29.02.2008. Ext.P5 would indicate that the petitioners have paid up the defaulted amounts as on 13.02.2008.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that no such repayment was made voluntarily and loans were re-scheduled by taking signatures from the petitioners. The petitioners allege fraud played on them by the officials of the respondent Bank. It is to be noticed that the specific contention taken by the Bank is that there were no default as per the instalments made on 13.02.2008. The scheme of 2008 itself was introduced only by 23.05.2008. Hence, the contention that fraud was employed in getting the loan renewed cannot at all be countenanced.
5. Taking note of the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition would stand dismissed.
6. However, considering the fact that the writ petition has been pending from 2010 onwards, if the loan amounts are not yet satisfied and the recovery proceedings are not yet concluded, the petitioners shall be granted 'ten' equal monthly instalments to pay the entire amount, The petitioners shall produce the certified copy of the judgment before the respondent-Bank and the Bank shall quantify the dues as on 20.12.2014 and issue a statement of accounts, in accordance with which the instalments shall be paid. The 1st instalment shall be paid on or before 01.01.2015 and thereafter; the due date of instalments falling on the 1st of each succeeding month. If default is committed in two consecutive instalments, then the recovery proceedings shall revive and continue. On the satisfaction of the dues as per the statement, the Bank shall give a statement of the future interest from 15.12.2014 and the same shall be settled as the 11th instalment.
The writ petition is dismissed with the above direction. No costs.
AMV/28/11/ Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE