The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 order of the Kerala State Farmers' Debt Relief Commission, by which an application for relief under the Kerala State Farmers' Debt Relief Commission Act, 2006 was declined. The petitioner also assails Ext.P10 order by which a review application was rejected. It has to be noticed that, the review application was rejected by the Secretary, but since there is no provision for review of an order under the Act, necessarily there would be no purpose served in directing re-consideration. 2. Ext.P5 is the order, which rejected the claim for the reason that the applicant is engaged in business and hence the debt incurred was not liable for consideration under the Act of 2006.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner specifically point to Ext.P1 application, wherein, the vocation of the petitioner is shown at item No.2, as a “farmer”. Item No.5 regarding the nature of activities carried on would indicate the petitioner having declared himself to be engaged in “paddy cultivation, poultry and cattle rearing”. The assumption made by the Commission that the petitioner is carrying on business as per the Bank statement, according to the petitioner is based on the declaration in the mortgage deed. The petitioner has produced the same along with the writ petition. Ext.P11 is said to be the gehan executed by the petitioner, to create mortgage of the properties, in which the petitioner had, in the description of parties, stated his vocation as 'business'. The petitioner's specific contention is that, the business he is engaged in is poultry and cattle rearing and is not any other commercial activity.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank, however, would take a contention that, the relief claimed is on the basis of the damages occasioned, which damage has been suffered by a property, which is not mortgaged to the Bank. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the Bank, is that Ext.P1 application, shows two properties; one a garden land and the another a paddy field. Ext.P3 is the certificate of the Agricultural Officer with respect to the damage caused to the paddy field. The land mortgaged for the purpose of availing the loan is the garden land and hence no relief could be claimed, seems to be the contention.
5. A reading of the act does not indicate that the relief is linked to the mortgaged land alone. The relief is with
countenanced.
6. In any event, since the Debt Recovery Commission has not considered any of the aspects, it is only proper that Ext.P5, be set aside. The R.P. No.5822/12/TV in application No.418170/09/TV shall be restored to the files of the Farmers' Debt Relief Commission. The petitioner and respondent Bank shall appear before the Commission on 12.12.2014 and produce a certified copy of this judgment before the Commission. The Commission shall consider the matter afresh. It is made clear that there is no warrant for the assumption that petitioner is carrying on non-agricultural business; merely on the petitioner having declared himself to be engaged in “business” in Ext.P1. The thrust should be on examining whether the business carried on is agricultural or not.
The writ petition is allowed.
AMV/20/11/ Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE