Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 38857
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J
ERANAD PRIMARY CO-OP AGRICULTURAL – Appellant
Versus
KERALA STATE FARMERS'' DEBT RELIEF COMMIS – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 17528/2011
The court affirmed the jurisdiction and discretion of the Debt Relief Commission in determining debt relief matters.
Headnote:
Debt Relief - Co-operative Bank - Kerala State Farmers' Debt Relief Commission - Jurisdiction and Debt Relief Decisions - Court upheld the Debt Relief Commission's decision to allow debtors to pay double the principal amount, affirming the Commission's jurisdiction and discretion.
Fact of the Case:
A Co-operative Bank challenged a final order from the Kerala State Farmers' Debt Relief Commission, which found that certain debtors were ineligible for relief but allowed them to pay double the principal within six months.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the Commission acted within its jurisdiction in allowing the concession, noting that the inability of a debtor to provide a crop loss certificate did not negate their status as a farmer.
Issues: Whether the Debt Relief Commission exceeded its jurisdiction in granting a concession to debtors found ineligible for relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Debt Relief Commission's discretion to facilitate debtors, despite their ineligibility for relief, was within its jurisdiction and did not warrant intervention.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed by a Co-operative Bank aggrieved by the final order passed by the Kerala State Farmers' Debt Relief Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, the first respondent herein. The Debt Relief Commission though found that the party respondents are not entitled for relief because the husband of the 3rd respondent is a ration dealer and also a rubber cultivator. However, the Commission ordered that party respondents need pay only double the principal amount within six months.
2. The case of the bank is that having found that they are not entitled for the debt relief, the Commission cannot pass such an order. The concession given by the Commission to extent to facilitate certain debtors cannot be said to be an arbitrary action. This Court invoking power under Article 226 of the Constitution need not upset such order of a Commission unless it is shown that Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction. The quantification of the alleged debt relief is a parameter to the relief being granted to the debtors. Merely because of a person who was unable to produce crop loss certificate they cannot be considered as farmers. Admittedly they are rubber cultivators. Therefore, the first respondent had jurisdiction to decide though it may be in circumstances the relief may not have been possible to be granted to the debtors for the reason one of the spouse is a ration dealer. The fact involved perhaps prompted the Debt Relief Commission to direct the bank to permit the debtors to pay double the principal amount. As has been noted by this Court the decision of the Debt Relief Commission to the extend the concession is within the jurisdiction. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
