The petitioners in all the above writ petitions are aggrieved with the non-disbursal of the benefit under Ext.P4 scheme. Ext.P4, Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008, has been introduced by the Central Government with the implementation agency as the NABARD and the District Co-operative Bank as the lead Bank. The petitioners' contentions are with respect to the non-disbursal of relief under Ext.P4 Scheme. The petitioners had approached the Grievance Redressal Officer as constituted under Ext.P4 Scheme, which was replied to by respective communications produced as Ext.P6, Ext.P7 & Ext.P7 in the respective writ petitions. By such communication the petitioners were informed that the Medium Term Loan availed by the petitioners having No.MTL5994 is not entitled to relief under the Scheme since the same is a term loan and would not come within the Scheme of 2008. 2. Even looking at Ext.P4 Scheme, the loans entitled for relief are the “Direct Agricultural Loans”, which are categorized as “Short Term Production Loans” and “Investment Loans”. With respect to “Short Term Production Loans”, they are loans given in connection with raising of crops which has a repayment schedule of 18 months, the principal amount of which does not exceed Rs.1,00,000/-. “Investment loans” are loans extended for meeting outlays relating to the replacement and maintenance of wasting assets and for capital investment; designed to increase the output from the land; deepening of wells, sinking of new wells, installation of pump sets, and so on and so forth.
3. The petitioners in the writ petitions asserts that the petitioners have availed investment loans. However, nothing is stated in the writ petitions as to what was the purpose, the loan was intended for; and what exactly is the investment made on land by the petitioner to come within the ambit of “meeting of outlays”, as laid down in the Scheme. The copy of the application, the agreement executed as also the ledger account has been produced in the writ petitions. The said documents only indicate that the petitioners had availed of agricultural loan and there is nothing to assume that the petitioner had in fact, availed an investment loan, or a short term production loan as defined in the Scheme of 2008.
4. The petitioners' loan period was also above that prescribed in the Scheme of 2008. The counter affidavit of the Bank also asserts that the loan availed by the petitioners were medium term loans and was not for any investment purposes. The respective petitioners, ;being husband and wife and daughter have availed of Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,65,000/-. The repayment as per the loan documents produced at Ext.P1 indicates the repayment schedule to be of five years. Definitely the loans are not short term loans.
5. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit contending that the loan was availed for digging well and planting coconut saplings and the same would come under the definition of investment loan. This Court on perusal of the records produced herein is not inclined to accept the said contention. The planting of coconut saplings admittedly carried on by the petitioner, could only be a crop loan and would not come within the definition of investment loan. The loan applications produced at Ext.P1 in; the respective writ petitions does not indicate the purposes proclaimed by the petitioners in the reply affidavit. In such circumstance, the petitioner cannot be said to be entitled to the relief under the Scheme of 2008.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank, further submits that, in fact the default having been committed by the petitioner, the respondent Bank was before the Arbitrator, who had passed an award in favour of the respondent Bank. The petitioners have availed of the appellate remedy before the Co-operative Tribunal, in which proceeding there was an interim stay granted, on condition, which condition has not been complied with. The respondent Bank would also contend that since the petitioner had already availed of the alternate remedy, the above writ petitions are to be dismissed on that count alone.
7. The petitioner in the writ petition has not challenged the recovery proceedings alone, but had claimed the benefit under the Scheme of 2008, which, this Court has found to be not sustainable. Except that, any other contention would be left open to be canvassed before the Tribunal. Writ petition would stand dismissed, with the above liberty reserved. Costs to be suffered by the respective parties.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge