Ext.P7 notice issued by the first respondent directing the petitioner to regularise the account of a loan availed by him, is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Shorn of the details, the case of the petitioner is that in view of the provisions contained in Ext.P9 Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme of the Government of India, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme’, he is not liable to pay any amount to the first respondent Bank. The first respondent, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’, filed a statement, indicating the particulars of the loans availed by the petitioner and the benefits of the Scheme sanctioned to him.
3. The pleadings and the documents produced in this writ petition indicates that the petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.40,000/- from the Bank and while substantial amounts were outstanding in that loan account, he was given two more loans by the Bank on 7.8.2006. One was a cash credit facility of Rs.50,000/-, under the Scheme called “Kissan Cash Credit Scheme” for a period of 3 years and the other was a term loan of Rs.1,00,000/-, under the Scheme called “Kissan Gold Card”, for a period of 10 years. After sanctioning the aforesaid loans, the outstanding dues in the earlier loan account was closed by debiting the account of the cash credit facility granted to the petitioner on 7.8.2006.
4. According to the Bank, since the petitioner did not pay the amounts payable by him from time to time in the loan accounts, both the accounts became overdue. While so, the Scheme came into force. The eligibility to claim the benefits of the Scheme, as contained in clause 2 (1) of the Scheme reads as follows:
“Only those direct agricultural loans which fulfil all the three conditions, i.e., (a) disbursed between March 31, 1997 and March 31, 2007, (b) overdue on December 31, 2007, and (c) remaining unpaid until February 29, 2008 will be eligible for debt waiver/debt relief under the Scheme.”
According to the Bank, in view of the provisions contained in the Scheme, petitioner was entitled to waiver of the balance outstanding in the account of the cash credit facility sanctioned to him on 07.08.2006 and accordingly, the outstanding liability in that account was written off. As far as the term loan sanctioned to the petitioner on 07.08.2006 is concerned, the stand of the Bank is that the Grievance Redressal Committee constituted under the Scheme, on examining of the loan accounts of the petitioner, held that he is entitled to a sum of Rs.19,962/- towards the benefit under the Scheme in that loan account and accordingly, the outstanding liability in that loan account to the extent of Rs.19,962/-was also written off.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has availed only a loan of Rs 1,00,000/- on 07.08.2006 and on account of the adjustments made by the Bank, he could not avail the benefits of the Scheme. In the writ petition, the petitioner has not stated about the earlier loan of Rs 40,000/- availed by him from the Bank. He has also not filed any reply to the statement filed by the Bank concerning the said loan liability. As such, it has to be taken that the stand of the Bank that the petitioner had an earlier loan liability and that the same was closed by debiting the account of the cash credit facility sanctioned to him on 07.08.2006 is correct. Once the materials on record are examined on that basis, it is clear that the benefits of the Scheme have been extended to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner was not able demonstrate as to how the petitioner can claim anything more than what was sanctioned to him under the Scheme. The stand of the petitioner that he has availed only a loan of Rs 1,00,000/- from the Bank on 07.8.2006 is of no consequence, as the petitioner is now fastened only with liability of the said loan of Rs 1,00,000/- and he has been extended the benefits of the Scheme in respect of that loan account as per the decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee constituted under the Scheme. Petitioner has not disclosed in the writ petition, the decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee. He has also not challenged the decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee. There is, therefore, no substance in the writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that revenue recovery proceedings have already been initiated to recover the balance outstanding in the loan account and that therefore, he may be given an opportunity to regularise the loan account. In the facts of this particular case, I feel that the petitioner shall be permitted to pay the overdue in the loan account, by five equal monthly instalments starting from 1st of November, 2014. If the petitioner remits the overdue as directed above, the Bank shall regularise the loan account. Needless to say that if the petitioner commits default in remitting any of the instalments, as directed above, the Bank is at liberty to continue the proceedings already initiated.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE smv