The court affirmed the limits of relief under Debt Waiver Schemes and outlined the availability of one-time settlement as a pathway for further assistance.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has come up before this Court alleging that she is entitled to have the benefits extended to the loan availed by her in full as per clause 4.1 of Ext.P2 scheme.

2. The petitioner availed an agricultural loan of Rs.27,400/- and another loan of Rs.12,000/- from the second respondent bank by mortgaging her agricultural property having an extent of 1 acre 40 cents. Though she was making repayment, due to failure of crops and fall in prices of produces, the dues amount could not be repaid in time subsequently.

WPC No.298 of 2011 2

3. The petitioner alleges that she was entitled to the benefits extended by 2006 Relief Package by Ext.P1 and the petitioner was granted the benefits by waiving over due interest in respect of the loan as on 30.6.2006 and over due loan as on 1.7.2006 was rescheduled.

4. Her case is that while so, the Central Government has announced 2008 Relief Package as per which the loans re-scheuled as per 2006 Relief Package would be waived.

5. The petitioner alleges that she had submitted Ext.P3 representation before the respondents. But it could not evoke any positive response. Thus, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

6. In the counter, the second respondent contended that the petitioner availed two loans from the bank on 28.3.1996. The period of the first loan was 15 years and the period of the second loan WPC No.298 of 2011 3 was 12 years. She availed the debt benefits under the Debt Relief Scheme as under:

7. According to the second respondent, the total liability as on 31.1.2011 is Rs.35926/- and the petitioner remitted an amount of Rs.5000/- on

13.1.2011 pursuant to the direction of this Court.

8. The definite stand taken by the respondent bank is that the bank had extended the permissible limit under the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008. Hence, the petitioner is liable to remit the balance amount as per Clause-4(3) and she is not entitled to the waiver of the entire dues as alleged in the petition; it was contended.

9. Arguments have been heard.

WPC No.298 of 2011 4

10. As it appears from the counter that the petitioner has been extended the permissible benefit under the Debt Relief Scheme, the scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is little.

11. However, the learned counsel for the respondent bank submitted that the State Co- operative Bank has introduced a one time settlement scheme which would expire on 31st March 2014. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is only just and proper to permit the petitioner to approach the bank concerned with an application seeking permission to avail the benefits of the one time settlement.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file a representation before the second respondent seeking the benefit of the one time settlement now introduced by the Kerala State Co-operative bank.

WPC No.298 of 2011 5 It is hereby made clear that till final decision is taken on the aforesaid representation, the existing state of affairs shall be continued and the final proceedings, if any, shall be subject to the final result of the decision in the one time settlement.