Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 16302
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SHAJI P.CHALY, J
PAPPY PANKAJAKSHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 27757/2014
A claim for debt relief must be substantiated by a recognized and legitimate scheme; failure to establish its existence precludes entitlement.
Headnote:
Loan - Writ Petition - No Scheme for Widows - The court ruled that there is no entitlement under the scheme as claimed by the petitioner since it was not launched, allowing the petitioner to repay the debt in installments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a guarantor for her deceased sister's agricultural loan, sought exclusion from debt recovery under a scheme for widows, believing her sister was entitled to the benefits. After her sister’s death, execution proceedings commenced without proper notification regarding the scheme’s benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no existing government scheme granting benefits to widows that could alleviate the petitioner’s repayment obligations. The Bank acted in accordance with the law when it initiated the recovery process.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to benefits under a scheme for widows as suggested by the Bank's communication.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since no substantial scheme was established for debt relief for the petitioner’s sister, she could not claim any benefits, but permitted her to repay the loan in installments.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of, allowing the petitioner to repay the loan in 15 installments.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to exclude the loan account No. OFMTC 35/00-01 availed by the petitioner's widowed sister as the same being included in the scheme for set off of loan amount of widows as evident from Ext.P2 and for a further declaration accordingly, and for other related reliefs.
2. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are thus:-
Petitioner stood as a guarantor to the agricultural loan, for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- availed by petitioner's sister late Padmakshy Vavan. Wiithout any notice being issued to the petitioner or her sister Ext.P1 Arbitral award was passed against the petitioner and her sister. Thereafter, property of the petitioner admeasuring 50 cents provided as security was put in auction. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.2459/2010 and has secured an order to pay wipe off of the amount in instalments. According to the petitioner, due to financial crisis, consequent to the loss in agricultural operation, petitioner could not repay in accordance with instalment facility provided by this Court.
3. That apart it is contended that, the first respondent Bank has informed the petitioner's sister that, first respondent Bank has included the name of the petitioner's sister in the scheme introduced by the third respondent to set off of the loan amount of widows and SC/ST, as evident from Ext.P2. Thereafter, petitioner's sister was directed to produce Caste Certificate and the same was also complied with, within the extended time granted by the first respondent Bank.
4. According to the petitioner, after that there was no intimation from the Bank, However, when petitioner sought information under Right To Information Act, she was intimated by Ext.P3 that, name of the petitioner's sister was included in the list in terms of the scheme and no further order has been passed with respect to the same.
5. That apart, it is also contended that, even though petitioner has filed several representations before various statutory authorities and the Chief Minister of the State, there was no positive response. During the interregnum sister of the petitioner died on 16.4.2014. Thereafter, petitioner received summons in Ext.P7 execution proceedings in EP No.45/2014 in ARC No.3710/2003 on the files of the Munisiff Court, Vaikom. There was no communication issued by the first respondent Bank stating that petitioner's sister was not entitled to get benefits of the scheme launched by the third respondent, is the contention.
6. According to the petitioner, if she was intimated in the like manner, the loanee or the petitioner could have avoided the execution proceedings. On the basis of Ext.P3 petitioner is under the bonafide belief that, there is a scheme launched for the widows by the third respondent and the loanee was entitled to secure benefit of the same. It is in the background this writ petition is filed.
7. First respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations, claims and demands made by the petitioner. It is contended that loan was availed by the petitioner's sister and she has defaulted payment of the same. It was consequent to the default Bank has initiated action by filing ARC 3710/2003 and obtained an award. That apart it is also contended that, the entire action initiated by the Bank was in accordance with law, notice was served on the petitioner from the Arbitration Court and that execution proceedings initiated by the Bank is also in terms of the award passed by the Arbitrator. It is also contended that, the subject issue is not a subject matter to be entertained by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India .
8. Second respondent has filed a counter affidavit also on similar lines and also supported the contentions put forth by the first respondent Bank. That part, it is stated that, there is no scheme launched by the Government, whereby the widows are taken care of against the
