Allowed

T.R. Moidu v. Wayanad Co-Op Agricultural Rural

Kerala HC29 Nov 2016WP(C)/37488/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders rejecting debt relief under the Farmers Debt Relief Scheme. Relied on earlier precedent holding housing loans are not for commercial purposes and fall under the Act. Court quashed rejection orders.

What did the court decide?

Quashed orders of 1st and 4th respondents. Directed 4th respondent to consider application afresh with notice. 1st respondent restrained from coercive action.

T.R. Moidu Vs Wayanad Co-Op Agricultural Rural — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 37488 of 2010 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

T.R. MOIDU, S/O.AMMAD, AGED 55 YEARS THOTTAN HOUSE, VEMOM P.O., MANATHAVADY, WYNAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. WAYANAD CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD NO.LL30,PANAMARAM,, WAYANAD

¶11

DISTRICT, PIN-673 121, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

2. THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER

¶13

WAYANAD CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK (GROUP), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT, REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT 673 121

¶14

3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, 671 121.

¶15

4. THE KERALA STATE FARMERS DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN

¶17

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.PRINCY XAVIER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C).NO.37488 OF 2010

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31.05.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION

¶23

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT SOCIETY TO THE PETITIONER

¶24

EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTER DATED 15.5.2008 EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.8.2008 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶25

EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25.11.2010

¶26

EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 09.07.2012 PASSED BY 4TH RESPONDENT KERALA STATE FARMERS' DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE HOUSE TAX PAYMENT RECEIPT DATED 6.2.1995 EXT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT CITED AS 2009(4) KLT 917.

¶27

RESPONDENT'(S) EXHIBITS:

¶28

EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN APPLICATION EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN SANCTIONING ORDER EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF GEHAN

// TRUE COPY//

P A TO JUDGE

sm/

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P.(C).No.37488 of 2010

¶34

Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2016

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

Relying on Ext.P10 judgment of this Court, the petitioner challenges Ext.P8 order of the Debt Relief Commission as well as Exts.P2, P4, P5 and P6 orders. By Ext.P8 the Debt Relief Commission rejected the request of the petitioner for relief under the Farmers Debt Relief Scheme, saying that the loan availed by petitioner was for construction of house. It was also stated that the petitioner had availed debt relief under coffee package and he is not entitled to any further relief. As per Ext.P4 order, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Society also rejected his claim on the ground that no waiver is admissible to housing loan and loans other than agricultural loans. It was stated that he is not entitled to any benefit other than waiver of penal interest as the term of the loan was to expire only on 01.04.2013 and as on 01.04.2008, a sum of Rs.2,24,372/- was due in his loan account. He was informed that the facility of writing off was not available for the loan availed by him as it was not an agricultural loan under the Central or State Scheme.

¶37

The case of the petitioner is that he is a farmer in Wayanad cultivating in leased out land. He sustained heavy loss on account of fall in price of ginger. He had availed loan from Agricultural Development Bank, Wayanad for the purpose of ginger cultivation pledging his property including a house in 15 cents of

¶38

W.P.(C).No.37488 of 2010

¶39

¶40

land. He had already constructed a house in the year 1994. He had to submit application for housing loan since he was informed that loan was not available for cultivation in leased out land. In fact, 15 cents of his land including his house was offered as security, along with an extent of 1 acre of land in the name of his wife. On account of the financial crisis he could not make repayment in time. The respondents initiated proceedings for recovery of the outstanding dues as per Ext.P2 demand notice followed by Exts.P5 and P6 proceedings for recovery.

¶41

Respondents dispute the claim of the petitioner stating that his application was one for housing loan. But petitioner submit that he has already constructed his house. If that be so, it is not clear how the respondent society could sanction housing loan in accordance with the proceedure. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that he was compelled to submit application for housing loan for the purpose of agriculture cannot be doubted.

¶42

This Court has in Ext.P10 judgment held that housing loan will also come under the purview of the Farmers Debt Relief Commission Act, 2006, interpreting the provisions contained in the Act especially Section 2(vii) defining debt. It was held that housing loan is neither a loan for a commercial purpose nor to augment income. In these circumstances, it was directed that the application of the petitioner therein shall be considered under the Debt Relief

¶43

W.P.(C).No.37488 of 2010

¶44

¶45

Scheme. In the light of the above judgment, the Commission was not right in rejecting the application of petitioner on the ground that he availed housing loan. The rejection of his petition by the Joint Registrar by Ext.P4 also on the very same ground is unsustainable.

¶46

In these circumstances Exts.P4 and P8 orders are quashed. There shall be a direction to the 4^th respondent to consider Ext.P1 representation afresh, in the light of Ext.P10 judgment, with notice to petitioner. The 1^st respondent shall not proceed with any coercive action against petitioner in the meanwhile.

¶47

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶50

T.R. Moidu v. Wayanad Co-Op Agricultural Rural

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.R. Moidu v. Wayanad Co-Op Agricultural Rural

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abubacker Haji Vs Chief Conservator of Forests and Others

N.P.Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Meena Ma Shanti Trust Vs the District Collector,Trissur and 2 Ors.

Jannet Fernandez Vs Director of Industries and Commerce&Ors.

A.Aravindakshan Vs Chief Conservator of Forests

B.Rajitha Vs the State of Kerala