The petitioners are stated to be the

legal heirs of deceased Sri.P.Balakrishnan,

who had availed of a loan of Rs.3 lakhs in

the year 2011 from the 4^th respondent Bank.

They

say

that

Sri.

P.Balakrishnan

unfortunately died on 07.06.2013 and

therefore, that he is entitled to the

benefits under the 'Kerala Risk fund Scheme

2008', thus causing substantial portions of

the loan to be written off under its mandate.

Their grievance in this writ petition is that

the respondent Bank did not do so and

therefore, that the 2^nd respondent-Kerala Co-

operative Development Welfare Board be

directed to consider their entitlement under

WP(C).No. 38030 of 2018 4

the scheme and take appropriate action.

2. I notice that a counter affidavit has

been filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent-

Welfare Fund Board, wherein they say that the

aforementioned Sri.P.Balakrishnan is not

entitled to the benefits under the Scheme

because the terms of the said Scheme would

become applicable only in the case of lions,

the period of which will be over before the

borrower attains 65 years of age. They say

that in the case at hand, the loan taken by

deceased Sri.P.Balakrishnan on 16.12.2011 and

that the period of loan was up to 16.12.2017,

when he would have attained 75 years. They

therefore, say that the contentions of the

petitioners regarding the eligibility of

Sri.P.Balakrishnan to the benefits under the

Scheme is untenable and without merit.

WP(C).No. 38030 of 2018 5

3. When this matter was taken up today,

it has been brought to my notice by the

learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-

Bank that the Kerala Risk Fund Scheme 2008

had been subsequently amended, whereby its

terms have been modified, and that the legal

heirs of a deceased borrower will be entitled

to the benefits under it, if the borrower had

died or had been inflicted with a very

serious decease before he turned 70 years in

age; and that this amendment was obviously

not adverted to by the 2^nd respondent while

considering

the

entitlement

of

the

petitioners.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the

2^nd respondent-Welfare Fund Board says that

they had taken a decision on the entitlement

of the petitioners based on the Scheme, as it

stood in the year 2008, and that if there is

WP(C).No. 38030 of 2018 6

an amendment, as is now stated by the learned

Standing Counsel for the Bank, they are

willing to re-consider the petitioners'

entitlement as per law.

5. In the afore circumstances, I order

this writ petition and direct the 2^nd

respondent-Welfare Fund Board to take note of

the amendments to the Kerala Risk Fund Scheme

2008 and re-consider whether the afore

mentioned late Sri.P.Balakrishnan would be

entitled to the benefits under it on account

of such amendments. The 2^nd respondent shall

re-consider this issue, after affording an

opportunity of being heard to the petitioners

as also the representatives of the Bank, as

expeditiously as possible, but not later than

one month from the date of receipt of a copy

of this judgment.

WP(C).No. 38030 of 2018 7

6. Needless to say, until such time as

the 2^nd respondent takes a final decision in

this matter, all action being pursued by the

respondent-Bank under the provisions of the

Securitisation

and

Reconstruction

of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Securities Interest Act shall stand deferred.

This writ petition is disposed of

accordingly.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

SB/05/02/19

JUDGE

WP(C).No. 38030 of 2018 8

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1

TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO.8952 DATED

06/12/11 ISSUED BY THE CALICUT CO-

OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.

EXHIBIT P2

TRUE COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED

14/06/2013 OF LATE P.BALAKRISHNAN.

EXHIBIT P3

TRUE COPY OF LOAN PASSBOOK ML 325.

EXHIBIT P4

TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED

19/05/2016 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5

TRUE COPY OF LETTER R/4941/16 DATED

16/10/2016 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6

TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT NO.CC/484/16

FILED BY 1ST PETITIONER BE