Remanded

Ashokrao Raosaheb Deshmukh and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Jul 2010WP/828/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the denial of benefits under the Central Government's 'Krushi Karzmafi Va Thakit Karz Sahaya Yojna 2008' scheme. The Court quashed the bank officers' impugned communications refusing the waiver claim and remanded the matter for a fresh, reasoned decision after re-examining the records of the bank and society.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communications dated 05.08.2008 and 07.08.2008 quashed. Matter remanded to concerned officer for fresh consideration with a directed reasoned order.

Ashokrao Raosaheb Deshmukh and Ors. Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

1 W.P.No.828.09

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.828 OF 2009

¶4

1] Ashokrao S/o Raosaheb Deshmukh Age:56 years,Occup. Agriculture

¶5

2] Sau Meenakshibai W/o Ashokrao Deshmukh, Age 46 years, Occup. Household

¶6

3] Sau. Arundhati W/o Ashokrao Deshmukh, Age, 29 years, Occup. Household.

¶7

4] Abhijeet S/o Ashokrao Deshmukh, Age: 27 years Occup. Agriculture

¶8

5] Vishwajeet S/o Ashokrao Deshmukh Age 36 years Occupation Agril. All above are R/o Ghatnandur, Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed. .PETITIONERS

¶9

V E R S U S.

¶10

1] The State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶11

2] The Beed District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Head Office Rajuri Ves, Beed Through its Managing Director.

¶12

3] The Ghatnandur Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., Ghatnandur, Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed, through its Secretary.

¶13

2 W.P.No.828.09

¶14

4] The Union of India,(Copy to be served through Standing Council Assistant Solicitor General of .RESPONDENTS India)

¶15

...

¶16

 Shri.V.D.Salunke, Advocate for Petitioners.
 Shri.V.H.Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent-State.
 Shri.A.S.Londhe,Advocate holding for
 Shri U.S.Mote,Advocate for respondent No.2
 Shri.N.S.Kadam,Advocate holding for
 Shri.M.P.Tripathi,Advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶17

...

¶18

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
 K.K. TATED, JJ.

¶19

 DATE : 29TH JULY, 2010.

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT :( PER : NARESH H.PATIL, J.)

¶21

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With

¶22

consent of the learned Counsel of the parties,
matter is heard and finally decided at the stage
of admission.

¶23

2. The petitioners contend that they obtained

¶24

loan from the respondent No.2-Bank, through
respondent No.3- Society. The loan was obtained

¶25

by the petitioners individually and was sanctioned

¶26

on 8th February, 2007 by the respondent No.2-Bank.

¶27

3 W.P.No.828.09

¶28

The loan amount was disbursed to the petitioners

¶29

under the scheme of advancement of loan, the loan
amount was to be repaid by 29th June, 2007. In
short, the petitioners’ contention is that in
accordance with scheme framed by the Central
Government, namely, ”Krushi Karzmafi Va Thakit
Karz Sahaya Yojna 2008”, the petitioners are
entitled for waiver of the loan, which they
obtained from the respondent No.1-Bank, as they
were defaulter on the crucial date i.e. on 29th
June, 2007. Under the scheme a Designated Officer

¶30

of the Bank is authorized to settle the grievances
in this regard. The petitioners made a grievance

¶31

to the said Officer, who is said to be Senior
AccountantofrespondentNo.2-Bank.By

¶32

communications dated 05.08.2008 and 7.8.2008 the

¶33

said Officer informed that the petitioners were
not entitled to claim benefit of waiver. These
communications are under challenge in this Writ
Petition.

¶34

3. Mr. Salunke, learned counsel appearing for

¶35

4 W.P.No.828.09

¶36

the petitioners submits that in the light of the

¶37

scheme of waiver, which is annexed and marked at
Exhibit “C” and the Chart of disbursement of the
loan annexed and marked as Exhibit “B” with this
petition, the petitioners ought to have been held
to be entitled for the purpose of waiver of scheme

¶38

declared by the Central Government and being
implemented through various agencies like
respondent No.2-Bank. The learned counsel submits
that in case respondent No.3-Society had submitted
certain documents like Promissory Note or any
other document indicating continuation of the loan
obtained by the petitioners from the respondent
No.2 bank, same shall not be construed to the
detriment of the petitioners, as petitioners were
defaulter on the crucial date i.e. 29th June,2007.
The learned counsel submits that the petitioners
did not authorise the respondent No.3-Society to

¶39

continue the loan obtained from the bank as
borrower.

¶40

4. The learned counsel appearing for the

¶41

5 W.P.No.828.09

¶42

respondent No.2 Bank produced the original record
before us. On instructions, the learned counsel
submits that as the petitioners’ loan was
continued under the communication sent by the
respondent No.3-Society to the respondent No.2-
Bank stating that the petitioners’ continued to be

¶43

borrowers and could not be defaulter for claiming
benefits of the waiver scheme. The counsel submits
on instructions that the petitioner No.1-Ashokrao
Raosaheb Deshmukh, has repaid the amount of loan
outstanding against him, therefore, his name could

¶44

be excluded from consideration of waiver of the
scheme.

¶45

5. Without entering into the disputed questions
of facts, which are raised by the parties, we are
of the opinion that the Officers concerned to
entertain the grievances as envisaged in clause

¶46

10.2 of the Scheme(Exhibit “C”) shall reconsider
the matter after going through the record
maintained by the respondent NO.2-Bank and
respondent No.3-Society and individual members

¶47

6 W.P.No.828.09

¶48

i.e. the petitioners herein, and decide the
grievances of the petitioners in respect of

¶49

claiming benefits of waiver of scheme, afresh.

¶50

6. In the facts of the case, we are of the view
that matter needs to be remanded back to the
officer concerned for reconsideration. Thus, we
pass following order:

¶51

Order

¶52

(i)The impugned communications dated
05.08.2008 and 07.08.2008 issued
by the Officers of the respondent
No.2-Bank to the petitioners are
quashed and set aside. The matter
is remanded back to the Officer
concerned.

¶53

(ii)The Officer concerned shall hear
the parties, consider the record,
object behind the scheme and
thereafter pass brief reasoned
order at the earliest.

¶54

(iii)All issues are kept upon.

¶55

7 W.P.No.828.09

¶56

(iv) The parties to the petition are entitled to file written submission before the Authority.

¶57

7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶58

No costs

¶59

 Sd/- Sd/-

¶60

[K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.]

¶61

MTK

Ashokrao Raosaheb Deshmukh and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashokrao Raosaheb Deshmukh and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishwanath Manikrao Chavan. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Secretary Dnyanprasarak Shikshan Sanstha and Anr. Vs Vishwanath Manikrao Chavan and Ors.

Shambhuraje Madhavrao Bhosale Vs State of Mah

Hanumantrao Shridharrao Deshpande Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Gmidc, Aurangabad Vs Abdul Majid and Anr.

Vasant Thamaji Diwane Vs the State of Mah.