C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. Writ Appeals are filed by the same Bank challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge declaring eligibility for debt relief to the respondents under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008. We have heard Standing Counsel appearing for the Bank and counsel appearing for respondents.

2. Since the facts in the connected cases are similar, there is no need for us to narrate the facts in respect of all the cases. So much so, we briefly state the common features of all the connected cases pertaining to which the claim of the respondents have to be decided.

3. The party respondents are 4 in number who availed one loan each ranging from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.1,80,000/- from the appellant-Bank on 26.12.2005. The loan account (produced as Ex.P1 in all the Writ Petitions) show that the loan is repayable after three years i.e. on or before 26.12.2008. So far as interest is concerned, it is specifically provided in the agreement that interest is at 10.4% p.a. Nature of loan is described in the loan agreement as “seasonal agricultural operations on crops”. When the respondents claimed debt waiver applicable to agriculturists under Ext.P2 sc