IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of the Debt Relief Commission's powers to disaster-affected areas and individual loans based on specific criteria, and the requirement of financial support for loan write-offs.

JUDGMENT :

These Writ Petitions, except W.P.(C.)No.32693 of 2014, are filed by Primary Co-operative Societies, which are engaged in the business of providing credit to its members by way of loans etc. Writ Petition No.32693 of 2014 has been filed by the erstwhile Kollam District Co-operative Bank Ltd., which is now merged with the Kerala State Co-operative Bank. The petitioners’ challenge, Circular Nos.1/2011 dated 03.01.2011 and 12/2011 dated 01.02.2011, issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. These Circulars have been published on the basis of stipulations contained in G.O. (P)No.91/2010 dated 06.12.2010 issued by the Fisheries Department and relate to the grant of certain benefits/ concession/waiver, in respect of loans availed by persons belonging to the fishermen community and whose principle avocation is fishing, as defined under Section 2(xii) of the Kerala Fishermen Debt Relief Commission Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Debt Relief Act’). The petitioners inter-alia contend that the Government Order dated 06.12.2010 and Circular Nos.1/2011 and 12/2011 dated 03.01.2011 and 01.02.2011 respectively, are illegal and ultra vires the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1969 Act’) and the Debt Relief Act. It is submitted that the implementation of those Circulars, except to the extent that any amount has been sanctioned by the Government to the individual Societies for waiving any particular debt, would cause immense financial stress to the Co-operative Societies in question. It is submitted that, neither the Government of Kerala nor the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has the statutory power to issue such directions, in respect of loans advanced by the petitioner Societies to individual fishermen.

2. Learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand seek to sustain the Government Order and the Circulars referred to above by referring to the provisions of Section 66A and 74F of the 1969 Act.

3. I have heard, Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, Sri. T.R. Harikumar, Sri. P. Gopal, Sri. P.P. Jacob, Sri. P.R. Shaji and Sri. M.M. Monaye, on behalf of the petitioners in these cases. I have also heard the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, who appeared on behalf of the State, Sri. T.G. Sunil, learned Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Fishermen Debt Relief Commission, Sri. Mohan C. Menon, Sri. Binu Mathew and Smt. Nisha George, learned Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd. and the Kerala State Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. (apex societies).

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the Counsel appearing for the Apex Societies, who support the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, would contend that the primary Societies are re-financed by the respective Apex Societies and, in every sense, act only as an intermediary in the sanction of loans to individual members of the respective primary Societies. It is submitted that the primary Societies are, therefore, bound to repay the amount sanctioned as a loan by the respective Apex Societies after retaining the margin on the interest permitted. It is submitted that if the individual Societies are required, in terms of the impugned Government Order/Circulars, to waive interest on loans granted to its members, these Societies will suffer irreparable financial loss and may even result in the collapse of the Societies, as they have no individual source of finance. It is submitted that, while on the recommendations of the Fishermen Debt Relief Commission, any waiver granted by the Government can be extended to the borrowers to the extent that the Societies are supported by the actual grant of amounts by the Government; no further relief can be granted to individual borrowers, without budgetary support from the Government. In other words, it is their contention that unless the am