Disposed

Premarani Pandey v. State of U.P. and 03 Others

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2018WRIC/36665/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding loan waiver eligibility, the court directed the bank to reconsider the petitioner's application under the Fasal Rin Mochan Yojana, dismissing the bank's claim that prior restructuring rendered her ineligible.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Branch Manager to pass an order on the loan waiver application within three weeks, disclosing reasons if rejected.

Premarani Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36665 of 2018 Petitioner :- Premarani Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 03 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Singh,Rajeev Kumar Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharmendra Vaish

¶2

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dharmendra Vaish, learned counsel for respondent no.4-bank.

¶4

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner is a small/marginal farmer and the further fact that the loan is of the period prior to 31.03.2016 as also the land being cultivated by the petitioner for which she had obtained the loan, falls within the State of Uttar Pradesh, she is fully eligible to grant of loan waiver under the scheme introduced and being in force by the State of Uttar Pradesh namely Fasal Rin Mochan Yojana. It is further submitted that the bank is acting contrary to law in not allowing the benefit of the aforesaid scheme of loan waiver to the petitioner.

¶6

Learned counsel for the respondent bank, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner had defaulted in repayment of her loan. Upon her earlier request, she had been granted the restructuring of the loan. Owing to that fact, she is ineligible to the benefit of the aforesaid scheme.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending as, prima facie, there does not appear to exist any ineligibility attracting to the petitioner owing to the earlier restructuring of her loan. In any case, without making any further observation and leaving it open to the respondent bank authority to pass appropriate order in that regard, the present writ petition is disposed of, with a direction that subject to the petitioner filing a proper application/representation for loan waiver before respondent no.4 within a period of three weeks along with a certified copy of this order, the Branch Manager of the respondent bank shall pass appropriate order on such application, disclosing reasons if that application is to be rejected. The aforesaid exercise may be completed by respondent no.4 within a period of three weeks from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioner along with a certified copy of this order.

¶8

Order Date :- 11.12.2018/AHA

Premarani Pandey v. State of U.P. and 03 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premarani Pandey v. State of U.P. and 03 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S/S Patel Hardware Vs Commissioner, State G.S.T. and 2 Others

C/M Shri Vighneshwar Navgrah Paryavaran Sansthan and Another Vs Prescribed Authoriy/ Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Sadar and 2 Others

Jarnail Singh Vs State of U P and 3 Others

M/S D.S.M. Sugar Asmauli Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Santosh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Haripal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another