Back
2011 Supreme(Online)(KER) 30223
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
ALICE MATHEW NO – Appellant
Versus
THE MANAGER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 9342/2011
Eligibility for the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme is based on specific criteria, including loan dates and the borrower's status as a farmer.
Headnote:
Agricultural Debt - Debt Relief Claims - Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 - Sections Relevant to Eligibility - Court ruled petitioners ineligible for debt waivers due to loan dates and definitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners took loans of 88,00,000 each for a rubber plantation but defaulted. They claimed eligibility for the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, and a one-time settlement scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners did not qualify for the Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme due to the timing of their loans and their status as non-farmers. No one-time settlement scheme was available.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are eligible for the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, and if they can claim a one-time settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that eligibility for the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme is strictly defined and the petitioners did not meet these criteria.
Final Decision: Writ petition rejected.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners have availed of loans of `88,00,000/- each from the respondent Bank for the purpose of purchasing a rubber plantation. Default was committed and amounts are remaining unpaid. In this writ petition, petitioners contended that they are entitled to the benefit of Ext.R1(d), the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. Another contention raised is that the petitioners have applied for the benefit of a one time settlement scheme and that the Bank should be directed to extend the benefit of the said scheme.
2. The respondent Bank has filed a counter affidavit. In so far as the claim of the petitioners for the benefit of Ext.R1(d)
scheme is concerned, it is averred thus:-
“The allegation in para 3 is denied. There was no request from the petitioners to extend facility of Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme implemented by Government of India. Moreover it is pertinent to mention here that this scheme is not applicable to the loan facility availed by the petitioners. The petitioners are not farmers. The said Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 is not applicable to the petitioners due to many such as :
WPC No. 9342/11 :2 :
a) The Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme is applicable only for loans disbursed upto 31.3.2007, overdue as on 31.12.2007 and remain unpaid till 29.2.2008. The said scheme is not applicable to the petitioners because the loan itself was extended to the petitioners only on 10.3.2008, 27.2.2008 and 26.3.2008 respectively for petitioners 1, 2 and 3.
b) The petitioner will not come under the category of farmers mentioned under the scheme.
c) The scheme is applicable to the revenue districts listed in Annexure 1 of the Debt Relief Scheme 2008.
d) The implementation of Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme should have been completed by 30th June, 2008.
Therefore, the petitioners are not in any way eligible under the scheme.”
3. Answering the claim of the petitioners for the benefit of one time settlement scheme, it is stated in para 13 of the counter affidavit that the Bank had no one time settlement scheme and that even today, Bank has no such scheme.
4. From the above stand taken by the Bank, it is obvious that the petitioners are neither eligible for the benefit of Ext.R1(d) scheme nor could the petitioners have claimed the benefit of any one time settlement scheme. Such being the case, there is no WPC No. 9342/11
substance in the relief sought for.
Writ petition is only to be rejected and I do so.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp
