JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed challenging Exhibit P2 order dated 03.05.2024 issued by the Kerala State Farmer’s Debt Relief Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) as also Exhibit P4 communication issued by the Secretary-in-charge of the Commission.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Commission had granted debt relief to the petitioner in respect of a loan availed by the petitioner from the Kattakode Service Co-operative Bank (the 2nd respondent herein) and the amount to be paid by the petitioner [after debt relief was granted] was paid by the petitioner in full to the bank. It is submitted that, thereafter, by Exhibit P2 order, the Commission proceeded to review the order dated 15.11.2022, [the order granting debt relief to the petitioner] on the ground that the son-in-law of the applicant/petitioner is a college teacher and the daughter of the petitioner is an Aided school teacher. It is submitted that, the petitioner thereupon, sought for copy of the order dated 15.11.2022, which had not been served on the petitioner and that request was rejected by Exhibit P4 communication stating that the order dated 15.11.2022 has been set aside by Exhibit P2 order.

3. It is submitted that, the writ petition is liable to be allowed on a short ground. It is submitted that, there is no provision in the Kerala Farmers Debt Relief Commission Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2006 Act’) which empowers the Commission to suo motu review the earlier order dated 15.11.2022. It is submitted that pursuant to the earlier order dated 15.11.2022, granting debt relief to the petitioner, the balance of the amount payable by the petitioner had also been paid in full to the 2nd respondent bank. It is submitted that, in such circumstances, the Commission ought not to have passed Exhibit P2 order reviewing the earlier order dated 15.11.2022 on the ground that the son-in-law and daughter of the petitioner, are both gainfully employed.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent also. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent does not dispute that the amount payable by the petitioner after granting the benefit of debt relief, has been paid by the petitioner. It is submitted that, if the order granting debt relief is withdrawn, some further amount will be due to the respondent bank.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent bank, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed on a short point. No power of review can be exercised by the 1st respondent in the absence of an enabling power in the 2006 Act. This law on the point is settled. See the judgment in Naresh Kumar & Ors. v. Government (NCT of Delhi); (2019) 9 SCC 416 wherein it has been held that unless the enabling statute/rules so permits, a review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi judicial orders. No provision of the 2006 Act or any statutory rule has been pointed out to show that the Commission has been vested with the powers of review. Therefore, without going into any other aspect in the matter, I am of the opinion that this writ petition is only to be allowed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Exhibit P2 order will stand quashed. In the facts and circumstances of this case and since Exhibit P2 has been quashed, I do not deem it necessary to set aside Exhibit P4 communication. If any amount is payable by the petitioner after granting the benefit of debt relief, it will be open to the respondent bank to recover the same from the petitioner, in accordance with the law.