The State has come up with this review petition.
2. The writ petition was filed by the Kalloorkadu Farmers' Co- operative Bank Ltd. No.2605 against Exts.P1, P2, P3 and P4. In Ext.P1 order dated 12.1.2009, the first respondent in the writ petition granted certain concessions in favour of the schedule caste/schedule tribe and converted Christians who availed loan from the societies which was due on 31.3.2006 along with interest and penal interest. These amounts were decided to be written off on condition that it would be reimbursed by the Government to the concerned financial institution. This was followed by Ext.P2 circular issued by the second respondent by way of clarification to Ext.P1.
3. The writ petitioner prepared a statement of eligible loanees in accordance with Ext.P1. The same was countersigned by the Auditor of the bank and submitted to the Government. While so, the second respondent in the writ petition issued Ext.P4 dated 18.8.2010 wherein it was stated that the amount to be written off would be restricted to the principal amount and there would not be any responsibility for the Government with regard to the interest and penal interest.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, they have justified their stand. According to them, the penal interest and other charges above ₹25,000/- were met by the lending institution itself. While considering the writ petition, this Court found that the petitioners are entitled to get the sum of ₹9,82,266/- and the said figure has been arrived at in view of Ext.P1 order issued by the Government. Relying on Ext.P1 issued by the Government, certain amounts were written off. Ext.P1 order was based on a policy decision of the Government. Since the writ petitioner society has taken a stand placing reliance on Ext.P1, this Court found that the State Government cannot resile from it later. Thus, the writ petition was allowed and Ext.P4 was quashed. It is against this, the review petition has been filed.
5. Though various grounds are raised in the review petition and persuasive submissions were made by the learned Special Government Pleader, this Court is of the view that the grounds stated in the review petition are not sufficient to review the judgment. It was considering the rival submissions of both parties, the judgment was passed and, therefore, the same does not call for interference, as there is no error apparent on the face of the record, calling for a review.
In the result, the review petition is dismissed. No costs.
krj Sd/-
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE