Allowed

Manohar S/O Timmanna Naik v. Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2020WP/62833/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash orders declaring petitioner ineligible for a loan waiver scheme. Petitioner claimed loan for well-digging was agricultural. Petitioner held to be eligible; orders quashed and direction issued for authorities to reconsider application.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsements quashed; direction issued to respondents to reconsider petitioner's representation under the Scheme within three months.

Manohar S/O Timmanna Naik Vs Assistant Registrar of… — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^{T H} DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.62833/2011 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MANOHAR S/O TIMMANNA NAIK AGE: 45 YEARS, R/O. KAGAL, TQ:KUMTA, DIST:UTTARA KANNADA.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI J S SHETTY, ADVOCATE.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA

¶13

KANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., SIRASI, DIST:UTTARA KANNADA, BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶14

RAITA SEVA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED TQ:KUMTA, DIST:UTTARA KANNADA, BY ITS MANAGER.

¶15

UNION OF INDIA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, NEW DELHI.

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

¶18

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU.

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP, FOR R.1 AND R.5; SRI ANANT HEGDE, ADVOCATE, FOR R.2; SRI GANGADHAR J.M., ADVOCATE, FOR R.3; SRI M.B.KANAVI, ADVOCATE, FOR R.4.)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO:

¶22

A) QUASH THE ORDER NO.SALA 010139 DATED 08/09/2009, PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO THE ENDORSEMENT NO.SA.NI.20/F09-2010-11, DATED 17/04/2010, ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-B;

¶23

B) DIRECT RSPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF BENEFIT OF LOAN WAIVER UNDER THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SCHEME BY CONSIDERING THE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 12/06/2009, 29/12/2009 AND 11/01/2010, MADE BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN PURSUANCE OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER, THE COPIES OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURESC, D AND E, ETC.,.

¶24

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD IN PART, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This petition is filed praying to issue a writ

¶27

of certiorari to quash the order No.Sala

¶28

¶29

010139/2009-10 dated 08.09.2009, passed by the second respondent, vide Annexure-A and also the endorsement No.Sa Ni.20/F09-2010-11 dated 17.04.2010, vide Annexure-B, issued by the first respondent.

¶30

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are

¶31

as under:

¶32

The petitioner is a small farmer. He had applied for loan for digging of the Well for agricultural purpose with the 3^rd respondent Raita Seva Sahakari Bank and a loan of `80,000/(Rupees Eighty Thousand only) was released in his favour by the 3^rd respondent/Bank on 29.6.2005. Due to failure of crops and also due to poverty, the petitioner could not repay the loan and the loan in question has become overdue. In the meantime, the Central Government had introduced an Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. The Reserve Bank of India

¶33

¶34

had circulated the said scheme to all the banks

¶35

and directed to act accordingly. It is the case of the petitioner that the benefit of the said scheme was applicable to the farmers, who availed loans for the purpose of digging of the Well. The scheme specified that the farmers will be considered as small farmers, who availed loan less than `50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). As per the said scheme, the loans which were released up to 31.12.2007 and outstanding is eligible for waiver of the loan. The petitioner availed the loan which was released in the year 2005 and hence he was eligible for the benefit of loan waiver.

¶36

It is the case of the petitioner that, on introduction of the said scheme, the 3^rd respondent recommended the name of the petitioner as the beneficiary under the scheme to the 2^nd respondent. But the 2^nd respondent stated that he was not eligible and directed the 3^rd

¶37

¶38

respondent to send a fresh list. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent did not send the names. It is the case of the petitioner that, though he was eligible to avail the benefit of the scheme, the 3^rd respondent with a deliberate intention and to deprive the rights, has not sent his name. The authorities of the 3^rd respondent tried to execute the award and started demanding the petitioner and the guarantors to repay the loan. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to issue a legal notice and made a request to the 3^rd respondent to recommend the name of the petitioner to avail the benefit of the scheme. Accordingly, the 3^rd respondent recommended and requested the 2^nd respondent to take into consideration of the matter and act accordingly. But the 2^nd respondent bank issued an endorsement as per Annexure-A informing the petitioner that he is not eligible for the benefit of the scheme. Hence the writ petition is filed seeking appropriate relief.

¶39

¶40

Respondents have not filed any

¶41

statement of objections.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶43

the respective parties.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, as per the clauses of the scheme, agriculturists who avail the loan for the purpose of improvement of the lands by digging the Well in their lands are entitled to avail the benefit of the scheme. The 2^nd respondent is not justified in holding that the petitioner is not eligible for the benefit of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. Therefore, the endorsement issued by the 2^nd respondent, vide Annexure-A, and the endorsement issued by the 1^st respondent are wholly illegal. He further submitted that the action of respondents No.1 to 3 is arbitrary and thus, prayed for appropriate direction.

¶45

¶46

Per contra, learned HCGP submitted

¶47

that the petitioner had availed the loan for nonagricultural purpose and not for agricultural purpose. Therefore, the State Government contended that the petitioner is not eligible to take benefit of the scheme and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶48

The learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 submitted that appropriate order may be passed. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that, as per the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008, investment loan means digging the Well or deepening of Wells and therefore, agriculturists who avail loan for the purpose of improvement of their lands by digging the Well in their lands are eligible and are entitled to take benefit of the scheme.

¶49

Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties, the point which would arise for

¶50

¶51

consideration of this Court is that, whether the and 2^nd and 1^st respondents are justified in issuing the impugned endorsements?

¶52

Perused material on record. As could be

¶53

seen from true copy of the scheme of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Clause 3 deals with definitions. Clause 3.3 deals with ‘investment loan’, which reads as under:

¶54

3.3. ‘ Investment Loan’ means

¶55

(a) Investment credit for direct agricultural activities extended for meeting outlays relating to the replacement and maintenance of wasting assets and for capital investment designed to increase the output from the land, e.g. deepening of wells, sinking of new wells, installation of pump sets, purchase of tractor/pair of bullocks, land development and term loan for traditional and non-traditional plantations and horticulture; and

¶56

(b) Investment credit for allied activities extended for acquiring assets in respect of activities allied to

¶57

¶58

agriculture e.g. dairy, poultry farming, goatery, sheep rearing, piggery, fisheries, bee-keeping, green houses and biogas.

¶59

It is the specific contention of the

¶60

petitioner that he had obtained the loan for digging of the Well, which is for agricultural purpose. The 3^rd and 4^th respondents also do not dispute the fact that the loan obtained by the petitioner was for digging of the Well. But the 2^nd respondent, vide Annexure-A, issued the endorsement stating that the petitioner had obtained the loan for non-agricultural purpose. But the 2^nd respondent has not considered the

¶61

request as per the scheme. According to the scheme, the agriculturists who obtain loan for the purpose of improvement of the land by digging of the Wells are eligible to take benefit of the scheme. The 2^nd respondent ought to have

¶62

¶63

considered the matter in lieu of the scheme, but it has failed to do so.

¶64

Therefore, the impugned endorsement

¶65

Annexure-A dated 8.9.2009 issued by the 2^nd Respondent and the endorsement Annexure-B dated 17.4.2010, issued by the 1^st respondent, so far as the petitioner is concerned, are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed.

¶66

The 2^nd respondent is hereby directed to consider the representation of the petitioner as per the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 and pass appropriate order within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶67

The writ petition is disposed off accordingly.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

Mrk/-

Manohar S/O Timmanna Naik v. Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar S/O Timmanna Naik v. Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

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

Halakusugal Vyavasaya Seva Sahakar Bank Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Anandkumar R. Annigeri, Vs the Principal

Chandragouda Madiwalgouda Patil Vs the Management of Nwkrtc

Sri Sangappa Mallappa Naidar Since Decd by His Lrs Vs the Secretary Land Tribunal

Basaveshwara Veerashaiva Vidya Vardhaka Sangha Vs Union of India

Annappa S/O Narsingh Takkudake Vs State of Karnataka