The petitioner sought mandamus directing the State Bank of India to extend benefits under the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. The Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner's loan purpose for purchasing land and constructing walls did not qualify as agricultural under the scheme's terms.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933
WP(C).No. 8007 of 2011(A)
------------------------PETITIONER:
K.J.EMMANUEL, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 43 YEARS, KARIKULATHEL, SREEKRISHNAPURAM OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST
BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL
RESPONDENTS:
PALAKKAD, PIN:678001
SC FOR SBI- SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
W.P.(C) No.8007 OF 2011
Dated this the 27th day of May 2011
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefit of Ext.P2 Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, after giving a declaration that the petitioner is eligible to have the said benefit.
The petitioner, who is stated as an agriculturist owning an extent of 2.98 acres of agricultural land in survey Nos.2121/pt (2.48 Acres), 2107 and 2108/pt (50 cents) in Palakkayam Village, obtained a loan allegedly for the agricultural purpose on 10-05-2006 (ATL 1082) agreeing to repay the due amount in 14 half yearly instalments. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to remit the instalments and in the meanwhile, the Palakkad District was ordered as 'drought affected area'.
W.P.(C) N0.8007/2011
2
W.P.(C) N0.8007/2011 3
With reference to the above clauses, the learned counsel submits that the loan procured by the petitioner for the purpose of 'investment' and also for 'constructing compound wall' is very much related to the agricultural purpose and hence, there is no rationale on the part of the respondents for having rejected the benefit under Ext.P2, which is sought to be intercepted.
W.P.(C) N0.8007/2011
4
In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner is not entitled to have the reliefs sought for. Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.
vdv
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a farmer purchasing land and constructing a compound wall is eligible for the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008.
Whether the terms of the scheme can be widened by the High Court when the Apex Court has declared principles against it.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.J. Emanuel
The Regional Manager, State Bank of India
The Grievance Redressal Officer
The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Kanjirapuzha
P.R. Ramachandra Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
