Siri Jagan, J.

A poor agriculturist is the appellant herein. He is aggrieved by the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court in W.P.(C).No.4001/2009. The judgment reads as follows:

"Petitioner claims to be an agriculturist, having 4.5 acres of land. He made an application to the 2nd respondent for financial assistance under the Haritha Cash Credit Scheme. Cash credit facility with an upper limit of Rs. 2 lakhs was sanctioned to the petitioner on 13.07.2005 and was disbursed on 19.7.2005. It is stated that, unlike the usual loan granted by the financial institutions with monthly payment of instalment consisting of principal and interest, this scheme is more in the nature of an overdraft facility and the petitioner was entitled to draw amount up to Rs. 2 lakhs, with liability to pay interest on quarterly basis. The credit facility was granted for a period of 3 years.

2. Petitioner committed default in paying interest and Exts.P1 and P2 notices issued in this behalf did not evoke any response. Finally, the Bank filed ARC. No.617/07 resulting in Ext.P4 award dated 19.6.2007. In the award a decree enabling the Bank to recover Rs. 2,38,224/- with interest at 12% on Rs. 2 lakhs from 19.7.2005 was passed. Even thereafter payment was not made and in the meantime, the Government of India introduced Agricultural Debt Waver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, a copy of which is Ext.R2 (a). On 30.7.2008, petitioner submitted a representation to the first respondent, claiming the benefit of the said scheme. The claim was considered and by Ext.P5, the benefit was declined. It is there upon that this writ petition is filed, challenging Ext.P4 and claiming the benefit of Ext.R2(a) scheme referred to above.

3. Relying on the various provisions of Ext.R2(a), counsel for the petitioner contends that, the loan availed of by him was an investment loan and that the petitioner being a small farmer, having less than 2 hectors of land, was eligible for the benefit of the scheme. It is also stated that, the liability due from him satisfied the conditions provided in clause 4.1(b) of the scheme, in as much as it was disbursed prior to 31st March, 2007 and was remaining unpaid till 29.2.2008. It is therefore contended that, the view taken in Ext.P5 is that the amount was overdue only as on 19.7.2008 is incorrect.

4. On behalf of the respondent Bank, the contention raised is that the period of credit facility expired only on 13.7.2008. Therefore, according to them, the amount was not overdue as on 31st December, 2007, in which event only the petitioner can claim the benefit of Ext.R2(a) scheme.

5. I have considered the submissions made. The argument of the petitioner is that, although 3 year period specified at the time of sanctioning loan expired only on 31.7.2008, the Bank obtained Ext.P4 award on 19.6.2007 and since the petitioner did not pay the amount due under the award, the amount due under the award was remaining outstanding as on 31st December, 2007 and therefore the petitioner comes within clause 4.1(b) of Ext.R2(a) scheme. Going by the Scheme, the amount should be disbursed prior to 31st March, 2007 and the petitioner satisfied this condition in as much as the loan was sanctioned and disbursed on 19.7.2005.

6. The second requirement is that the amount should be overdue as on 31st December 2007. Since the period of loan facility granted to the petitioner was 3 years, the period expired only on 13.7.2008. If that be so, the petitioner cannot say that his liability was overdue as on 31st December, 2007. On the other hand, if the liability is to be taken one under Ext.P4 award, in my view the petitioner will not be eligible for the benefit of the scheme. This is for the reason that waiver contemplated in Ext.R2(a) is the waiver of the agricultural debt and not a debt arising under a award. If that be so, the debt under the award cannot be equated as an agricultural debt and such a debtor cannot claim the benefit of Ext.R2(a) scheme. If so, the