IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P. No.16074 of 2008

Date of decision: 10.9.2008

Ajmel Singh.

-----Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India and others.

-----Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

Present:

Mr. M.P.S. Mann, Advocate

for the petitioner.

-----

ORDER:

This petition seeks quashing of explanation 1 to Clause 3 of

Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 (hereinafter

referred to as “the Scheme”).

The Scheme provides for waiver of debt or debt relief

depending upon category in which the debtor falls. There is a total

waiver of eligible amount of debt in respect of small or marginal

farmers, as defined in Clause 3.5 and 3.6 of the Scheme. According to

the explanation, the classification on the basis of land holding criteria is

to be seen at the time of sanction of loan irrespective of subsequent

changes in ownership or possession.

CWP. No.16074 of 2008

Grievance of the petitioner is that on the date of taking of

loan, the petitioner was not covered by the definition of “small farmer”,

but subsequently, he had to sell his land to pay the loan and on the

date of coming into force of the Scheme, he was covered by the

definition of “small farmer” under Clause 3.6 of the Scheme.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that provision

under explanation to Clause 3 of the Scheme fixing the date of sanction

of loan as the cut off date for the eligibility, is arbitrary.

We are unable to accept the submission.

The cut off date is a matter of policy unless shown to be

irrational. The date of sanctioning of loan cannot be said to be

irrelevant date for determining the category of debtors. There is bound

to be some people on one or the other side of the cut off date.

We are unable to hold that the cut off date fixed in the policy

for waiver of loans cannot be struck down on the ground that the date

of coming into force of the Scheme could also be a relevant date for

waiver of loan.

The law on the point is settled and reference can be made

to judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd

v. Delhi Admn AIR 2001 SC 1447 (Paras 18 to 20), G.B. Mahajan v.

Jalgaon Muncipal Council

AIR 1991 SC 1153 (Para 14), Reliance

Airport Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India (2006) 10

SCC 1 (Para 58), Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of

Gujarat AIR 1997 SC 3400 (para 28) and Ramrao v. AIBC Bank

Employees Welfare Association, AIR 2004 SC 1459 (paras 31 to 33).

2

CWP. No.16074 of 2008

Dismissed.

After arguing on merits, when we were not inclined to

entertain the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks dismissal

of the petition as not pressed.

Dismissed as not pressed.

( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )

JUDGE

September 10, 2008

( AJAY TEWARI )

ashwani

JUDGE

3