A debtor cannot claim benefits under a relief scheme if they have already received the permissible reductions and must honor repayment obligations.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner availed an agricultural loan of Rs. 5 lakhs from the 4th respondent Bank in January 2006. But the repayment was not effected properly and the petitioner turned to be a defaulter when the Bank proceeded with further steps including by way of RR proceedings, which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to have the benefit of Exhibit P1 Debt Relief Scheme, which however was denied by the respondent Bank. Referring to the terms of the Scheme, there is a contention that the petitioner is entitled to have a total waiver. Petitioner is seeking for a direction to be given to the 3rd respondent to take a decision on the objection filed by the petitioner vide Exhibit P4.

3. The Learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits on instructions that the averments and allegations raised in the writ petition do not keep the right track of truth. By virtue of the nature of the loan availed by the petitioner and also the terms of the Scheme, the petitioner was eligible to have reduction to an extent of Rs. 1,82,691/-(One lakh Eighty Two Thousand and Six Hundred and Ninety One only) and this in fact was granted to the petitioner, as early as on 08.07.2008; despite which the liability was not satisfied. After granting the benefit to the said extent, there was no grievance for the petitioner, till date, either by approaching the grievance cell or such other appropriate forum, as to the non-extension of the full benefit under Exhibit P1 Scheme. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, even in March 2012, there was an 'Adalath' at the instance of the Bank, when it was assured that the entire liability would be cleared within no time, which however still stands to be honoured.

4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that there is no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner as to the alleged non-extension of the benefit flowing from Exhibit P1 Scheme; the same have already been extended to the permissible extent as mentioned herein before. In the said circumstances, no interference is warranted in this writ petition. However, taking note of the persuasive submissions made the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to clear the entire outstanding liability by way of 'eight' equal monthly installments, the first of which shall be effected on or before the 10th of August 2012, to be followed by similar installments, to be effected on or before the 10th of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P2 and P3 notices shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. It is made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner in clearing the liability as above, it will be open to the respondents to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in lump, from the stage where it stands now.

The writ petition is disposed of.