Dismissed

Budha Ambedkar Samithi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC31 May 2011WP(C)/3222/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioners challenged coercive recovery actions and sought uniform interpretation of a loan waiver scheme. The court declined interference, held findings could not be made without individual loan facts, and remitted the matter to the Government for consideration.

What did the court decide?

No interim relief for coercive steps or waiver ordered. The petition is disposed of, without prejudice to the right of petitioners to pursue claims before the Government.

Budha Ambedkar Samithi Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 3222 of 2011(C)

¶6

-------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

¶9

BUDHA AMBEDKAR SAMITHI, REGN.NO.P-107/05 THEPPUPARA PO, EZHAMKULAM, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI.THANKAPPAN.

¶10

K.V.BHASKARAN, KANJIRAVILAYIL HOUSE, THUVAYOOR NORTH, MANAKKALA PO, ADOOR.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRA NATH

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY IT SECRETARY TO GOGERNMENT, SCHEDULED CASTE & SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE SCHEDULED CASTE/SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

THE KERALA SCHEDULED CASTE/SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PANDALAM BRANCH.

¶19

THE MANAGER, PALLIKKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, NOORANAD.

¶20

THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK, ADOOR BRANCH, ADOOR.

¶21

THE MANAGER, KADAMBANAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KADAMPANAD.

¶22

THE MANAGER, CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK, KADAMBANAD.

¶23

THE MANAGER, SOUTH MALABAR GRAMEEN BANK, KADAMBANAD.

¶24

THE MANAGER LAND MORTGAGE BANK, ADOOR.

¶25

THE MANAGER, PERINGANAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PERINGANAD.

¶26

THE MANAGER, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PANDALAM.

¶27

THE MANAGER, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KILLIVAYAL BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶28

THE MANAGER, ENATH SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, CHOORAKKODE.

¶29

THE MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, ADOOR.

¶30

THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ADOOR.

¶31

THE MANAGER, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KODUMON.

¶32

THE MANAGER, ERATH SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, ERATH.

¶33

THE MANAGER, CORPORATION BANK, PARAKKODE.

¶34

THE KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, NEDIYA BRANCH.

¶35

THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ENATH BRANCH.

¶36

THE MANAGER, AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, NOORANAD BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶37

THE MANAGER, CO-OPERTIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, MAVELIKKARA.

¶38

THE MANAGER, POOVATTAKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM.

¶39

ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR, SC,I.O.BANK FOR R16 SRI.T.R.RAVI, SC, S.MALABAR G. BANK FOR R10 SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,KOLLAM CO-O FOR R4,5,21 SRI.K.S.DILIP FOR R22

¶40

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. P.N. SANTHOSH. R9 BY ADV. MR. B.S. KRISHNAN

¶41

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶42

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶43

W.P.(C)No. 3222 OF 2011

¶44

Dated this the 31^st May , 2011

¶45

J U D G M E N T

¶46

The petitioners have approached this Court with the

¶47

following prayers:

¶48

“ i) issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext. P4 and quash the same to the extent it limits the benefit of the scheme to loans of which repayment time has expired on 31.03.2006

¶49

ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the respondents to extend the benefit of Ext.P4 Government Order for writing off loan availed by the petitioner's members upto Rs.25,000/iii) to declare that the petitioners are entitled for waiver of the loan availed by them in terms of Ext.P4;

¶50

iv) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to extend the benefit given in Exhibits P5 and P6 to the petitioners also and also to consider and take appropriate action on Ext.P2 within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court; and v) any other relief this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.

¶51

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the

¶52

¶53

W.P.(C)No. 3222 OF 2011

¶54

properties of the members of the 1^st petitioner association are being proceeded with, by the concerned respondents resorting to coercive steps, which according to the petitioners is not permissible in view of Ext.P9 judgment. Ext. P9 judgment clearly states that the observations made in the judgment shall not be treated as a direction. Going by the contents of Ext.P9 judgment, it is for the Government to consider the claim for waiver and to proceed with the recovery steps in respect of the cause of action which was mooted therein. Ext.P4 Government Order (G.O.No.100/09/SC/ST.DEV. dated 12.11.2009, pertains to to various Govt. Departments/Co-operative Societies /Cooperative Banks, which cannot be read and interpreted, so as to have uniform application. That apart, it has been observed by the Division Bench in the opening paragraph of Ext.P9 judgment as follows:

¶55

“ We do not think there is any need to consider the contentions raised by the petitioners on merit because individual borrowers are not before us and unless facts pertaining to each loan is considered, there is no scope for our considering entitlement for

¶56

¶57

W.P.(C)No. 3222 OF 2011

¶58

waiver of loan by the borrowers under any Government Scheme”.

¶59

In the above circumstance, this Court finds it very

¶60

difficult to accept the proposition of the petitioners. Interference is declined, however without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to pursue appropriate steps before the Government, if they are otherwise eligible. Benefit of Ext.P4, including to the extent as modified pursuant to Ext. P9 judgment, as the case may, shall stand extended to the eligible hands. It is made clear that this will not preclude the individual borrowers to challenge the action, if they are otherwise eligible, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law.

¶61

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶62

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶63

Budha Ambedkar Samithi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Budha Ambedkar Samithi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vineesh .P.P and Others Vs the Mahatma Gandhi University and Others

V.N.Public Health and Educational Trust Vs the Kerala University of Health and

Adil M.Faizal Rep. by Muhammed Rumly V.S Vs the Director, Cbse and Another

Thomas Kurian Vs Syndicate Bank

Jai Jawan Ex-Servicemen Vs Director General of Re-Settlement

Kesavan Asari Vikraman Asari Vs the District Collector and Others