The petitioner is aggrieved with the denial of the relief under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 [for brevity “Scheme of 2008”]. The petitioners contend that though their loans were first included in the list of borrowers eligible for relief; since it was objected to by the audit department of the Bank, it was rejected unilaterally. In such circumstances, the petitioners were before this Court in W.P.(C).No.23945 of 2008. By Exhibit P4, the petitioners were directed to approach the Grievance Redressal Officer, who considered the claim of the petitioners and rejected it by Exhibit P5. Exhibit P5 is assailed herein.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the purpose shown in the application is “agricultural”; and this Court, by a decision reported in Raju M.Thomas v. Urban Co- operative Bank Ltd. [2013 (3) KLT 417], has held that what is to be looked into for considering the benefit under the Scheme of 2008 WP(C).No.873/2009 - 2 -
is the purpose for which the loan was taken and not the form of the loan. In the aforesaid case, the loan granted was in the form of a cash credit account and the Bank declined the relief under the Scheme of 2008, for reason of it being a cash credit. The Division Bench also found that the Bank had filed an ARC for effecting recovery of the entire loan amounts with interest as on 28.03.2007, which indicates that the default was there as on 31.12.2007.
3. In the present case, however, the said proposition would not be applicable. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Bank submits that though the petitioners had made application showing the “crop”, the Bank could not have granted agricultural loans in excess of Rs.2,000/- for a total extent of 10 cents of land. Each of the petitioners sought for Rs.50,000/- each as loan and had agreed to mortgage a total extent of 39 cents of property; 9 cents belonging to the 1st petitioner and 10 cents each belonging to petitioners 2 to 4. Hence, the Bank could not have granted more than Rs.8,000/- as agricultural loan, is the contention. However, considering the application for Rs.50,000/-, the Bank had sanctioned “Ordinary Loan” after creating mortgage of the properties.
WP(C).No.873/2009 - 3 -
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the aforesaid contention is not substantiated by the respondent-Bank. However, it is to be noticed that the Grievance Redressal Officer has, by Exhibit P5, rejected the grievance projected before him. It is trite that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is confined and this Court would not look into factual issues as to the eligibility of the borrowers in each of the cases.
5. Further, it is also to be noticed that the Government of India by order F.No.3/9/2010-AC dated 11.01.2013 discontinued the Scheme of 2008. The “Debt Relief” portion of the Scheme was closed on 30.06.2010. It has also been directed in the above Circular that the performance audit with respect to the Scheme of 2008 has to be completed within one month from the date of the said order. Admittedly the Scheme of 2008 was a scheme for which the implementation agency was the NABARD and reimbursement was also to be granted by NABARD to the persons entitled for such relief. The Scheme itself having been closed as on 30.06.2010, no reliefs can be granted as of now.
WP(C).No.873/2009 - 4 -
6. However, since the writ petition is pending before this Court from 2009 onwards and the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners shall approach the respondent-Bank, it is directed that if the petitioners approach the respondent-Bank within a period of one month from today, the Bank shall consider whether the petitioners can be granted some relief with respect to waiver of interest and also instalment facility, under any available scheme or otherwise, after a decision taken by the Managing Committee of the Bank. It is made clear that the respondent-Bank shall give the petitioners at least fifteen equal monthly instalments, if no waiver is granted as such.
The writ petition would stand dismissed; however with the above observations/directions. No costs.
vku/-
Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge ( true copy )