IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.4513/2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M SANJEEVA KUNDER S/O KARIYA KUNDER, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT GANJALA, NAGODI VILLAGE, NITTUR POST-577452 HOSANAGARA TALUK, SHIMOGA DIST REP. BY ITS GPA HOLDER, J TULASIDARAN, S/O JANARDAHAN, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O NAGODI GRAMA, KASABA HOBLI, HOSANAGARA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577452 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI RANJITH KUMAR, ADV. FOR SRI PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADV.) AND:
CANARA BANK BRANCH OFFICE AT NITTUR, HOSANAGARA TALUK-577452 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT,. REP. BY ITS MANAGER (BY SRI V HARIDAS BHAT, ADV.) ... RESPONDENT THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO EXTEND THE BENEFIT OF DEBT WAIVER AND DEBT RELIEF PACKAGE TO THE PETITIONER BY WAVING OFF THE DEBT OF THE PETITIONER AVAILED FROM RESPONDENT BANK BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION VIDE ANNEX-C DATED 27.10.2016 AND AS PER THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THIS COURT AND DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNEX-A & B.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court seeking that a mandamus be issued to the respondent to extend the benefit of Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Package to the petitioner by considering the representation dated 27.10.2016 filed by the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that in respect of the loan obtained by the petitioner for which a Recovery Certificate has also been granted in favour of the respondent, the petitioner is entitled to the waiver under the Debt Relief Package. Since the representation made by the petitioner had not been considered by the respondent, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The respondents have filed their objection statement to which the communication as at Annexure-R4 is attached. In the said communication, it is indicated that the representation as made by the petitioner has been considered and disposed of since according to them the scheme under which the petitioner is claiming benefit is not applicable, the benefit is declined. Since a decision has already been taken by the respondents, a mandamus to consider the representation would not arise at this stage. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of the request made by the respondents and if the petitioner is of the opinion that the Scheme is applicable, appropriate grounds are to be urged to assail the rejection as made by the respondents. To that extent, liberty is reserved to the petitioner.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE hrp/bms