Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 8221
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J
THE POLPULLY KSHEERA VYAVASAYA – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT – Respondent
WP(C)/28886/2008
SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRIJOSEPH P.M, SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR, SRI.M.RAJEEV, ADDL.CGSC, SRI.JOSEPH P.M, SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR, SC., SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
The judgment clarifies that the definition of Co-operative Credit Institutions under the Debt Relief Scheme includes co-operative societies recognized by the state, impacting their eligibility for benefits.
Headnote:
Debt Relief - Co-operative Societies - Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme - Sections Under KCS Act - Summary of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme (2008) and its categorical inclusion of Cooperative Credit Institutions, emphasizing the interpretive role of cooperative definitions, impacting eligibility determinations.
Fact of the Case:
Co-operative Milk Societies petitioned for inclusion in the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme due to the refusal of NABARD to acknowledge their loans under the Scheme despite qualifying as co-operative credit institutions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner societies are part of the cooperative credit structure and should be eligible for benefits under the Debt Relief Scheme, as their loans fell within relevant definitions. The refusal to acknowledge this was unjustifiable.
Issues: Whether the petitioner co-operative societies qualify as Co-operative Credit Institutions under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, impacting their eligibility for benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The definition of Co-operative Credit Institutions under the Scheme includes those recognized by the state government; hence, excluding the petitioner societies lacks legal justification.
Final Decision: The court directed the Central Government to decide on the petitioners' entitlement within three months, or interim directions would become absolute.
J U D G M E N T
As all these matters involve a common issue, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the reference to facts and exhibits is from W.P.(C).No.28886 of 2008.
2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are Co-operative Milk Societies that have been registered as such under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act . Being Milk Societies they all function under the administrative supervision of the Director, Dairy Development Directorate of the State, situated at Trivandum. In the writ petition, the petitioners are aggrieved by the non- consideration, for the benefit of debt relief under Ext.P5 Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme promulgated by the Central Government in the year 2008, of the loans advanced by them to their members. It is the specific stand of the petitioners in the writ petition that, while they qualified as co--operative credit institutions under Clause 3.4 of the aforementioned Scheme, and the loans extended by them to their members fell within the definition of Direct Agricultural Loans for the purposes of the Scheme, the respondents, and in particular, the 2nd respondent and the 4th respondent namely, the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (NABARD) and the Government of India, Department of Financial Services, refuse to consider the applications put in by them for extension of the benefit of the Scheme. It is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the said respondents to entertain the applications preferred by them for the benefit of the Debt Relief Scheme that the petitioners have approached this Court praying, inter alia, for a direction to the said respondents to extend the benefit of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 to them as well.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government wherein it is stated that the petitioners, being part of the co-operative credit structure within the State, would qualify for eligibility for the benefit of the Scheme, and hence, there was no justification in the Central Government excluding them from the benefit of the said Scheme. It is also pointed out that, when informed of the refusal on the part of NABARD to accept applications from the petitioner societies, the State Government had taken up the matter with the Central Government and a decision from the Central Government was awaited. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of NABARD, reliance is placed on a clarificatory Circular (produced as Ext.P10 in W.P.(C).No.28886 of 2008) to contend that the Central Government had clarified that for the purposes of the aforementioned Debt Relief Scheme, functional societies would not come within the definition of Co- operative Credit Institutions as defined under the Scheme, and that loans given to and by the said societies are not covered under the Scheme. It is relevant to note, however, that the counter affidavit filed by the said respondents, apart from making a bland averment that the Dairy Co-operative Societies are classified as functional societies, does not point to the rationale behind denying the benefit of the Scheme to the petitioner Co-operative Societies.
It is apparent from a perusal of the counter affidavit of NABARD that their role in the Scheme is only as a Nodal Agency of the Central Government for the purposes of implementation of the Scheme, and that they had only relied on the clarificatory Circular issued by the Central Government for the purposes of refusing the applications put in by the petitioners societies for the benefit of the Scheme.
4. I have heard heard Smt.Dhanya P.Ashokan, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.28886 of 2008,W.P.(C). No.6174 of 2009,W.P.(C).No.5078 of 2009 and W.P.(C).No.4596 of 2009, Sri.K.V.Sreevinayakan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.16976 of 2009 and the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents of the State Go
