The petitioners are banks, who are aggrieved with the non-disbursal of the benefit under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008, implemented by the Central Government through the NABARD, with lead Bank as District Co- operative Bank. The petitioners are specifically aggrieved by the non-disbursal of benefits to their members who had availed of loans from them. Denial of such benefits was for reason of the scheme being applicable only to those loans which were availed prior to 31.03.2007. Relief was granted to loans prior to 31.03.2007, to the extent of the overdue as on 31.12.2007 remaining unpaid as on 29.02.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in fact, every loans were renewed prior to the implementation of the scheme and such renewal would not dis entitle its members from the benefit under the scheme. 2. In fact, it is to be noticed that many borrowers who had approached this Court claiming that the Banks had unilaterally renewed the loans were found to be entitled to the relief under the Scheme of 2008; for reason that, the renewal was made long prior to the implementation of the Scheme and the action of the Bank cannot be considered to be one deliberately intended to decline relief to the various borrowers. Herein the difference is that the Banks, then the creditors, themselves have come forward, contending that a unilateral renewal was made but however, only to reduce the arrears and hence the members who had availed such loans prior to 31.03.2007 should also be granted relief to the extent granted by the Scheme of 2008.
3. It is to be noticed that the Central Government has brought in the scheme specifically to grant relief to such farmers who had agricultural losses due to natural calamities or otherwise and hence a specific date was prescribed (31.12.2007), the default in which date, if remaining unpaid at a future date (29.02.2008), was granted as relief. The Central Government through the NABARD compensates such granted relief to the borrowers, by reimbursing the amount of relief to the Banks and Co- operative Societies. Though at first blush the scheme would appear as one giving a premium on default, the intention behind it was only to provide succour to such agriculturists who had suffered loss and had been disabled from making regular payments to the loan account.
4. Herein, the renewal of the various loans granted by the petitioner Banks themselves, would take the loans out of the purview of the Scheme of 2008. Having so renewed the loans, the petitioner banks cannot turn around and contend, on implementation of the Scheme, that, their members who were borrowers would be entitled to the benefits of such scheme.
5. There arises herein a serious question of locus standi also. The Scheme of 2008 was not intended to clear the arrears of Banks. It was with the specific purpose of granting relief to the borrowers; meaning those who had suffered agricultural losses and were disabled from making re-payments to a loan, for reason of financial stringency due to such loss suffered. There is a redressal mechanism provided under the Scheme itself which has not been availed of by any of the borrowers raising a valid claim for relief under the Scheme. The Bank's representation, in proxy, is not sanctioned or permissible and the prayers in the writ petition are not raised on any valid, legal ground. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit.
6. In such circumstance, this Court does not find any infirmity in the action of the respondent in declining such relief under the Scheme of 2008 to the various loans availed from the petitioner Banks.
Writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to suffer the respective costs.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge