Allowed

A.K.Abdulkhader v. the Muvattupuzha-Kothamangalam Primary

Kerala HC2 Mar 2017WP(C)/4204/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order by the cooperative bank declining his claim for complete loan waiver for farmers. The single judge held that the bank's order lacked reasoning and violated natural justice, setting it aside and directing the bank to reconsider the application based on the relevant schemes.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P5 order set aside; 1st respondent directed to reconsider Ext.P4 application within two months regarding distress relief.

A.K.Abdulkhader Vs the Muvattupuzha-Kothamang… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2017/11TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 4204 of 2009 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

A.K.ABDULKHADER, S/O.LATE MUHAMMED BEEK,

¶8

AMALIPURATH HOUSE, MYLOOR P.O., PALLARIMANGALAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.B.MOHANLAL

¶10

SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE MUVATTUPUZHA-KOTHAMANGALAM PRIMARY

¶13

CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT, BANK LTD. NO.4389, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O. MOOVATTUPUZHA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

2. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,

¶15

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI.

¶16

3. THE NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE &

¶17

RURAL DEVELOPMENT (NABARD),

¶18

REP. BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,

¶19

REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶20

4. THE KOTHAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE

¶21

AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED NO.E-1192, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 691,

¶22

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶23

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU

¶24

SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI

¶25

R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

msv/

¶28

WP(C).No. 420 of 2009 (A)

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶31

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE MINIS	COPY OF TER OF F	THE INAN	BUDGET SPEECH 2008-2009 AND SCHEME OF CE IN THE PARLIAMENT.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE MINIS	COPY OF TRY FOR	THE FINA	CIRCULAR NO.1.08 ISSUED BY THE NCE.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE NABAR	COPY OF D.	THE	CIRCULAR DTD.23.5.2008 ISSUED BY THE
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE SUBMI OFFIC	COPY OF TTED BY ER OF TH	THE THE E 1S	REPRESENTATION DTD.14.7.2008 PETITIONER BEFORE DISPUTES SETTLEMENT T RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE 1ST R	COPY OF ESPONDEN	THE T.	REPLY DTD.19.7.2008 ISSUED BY THE
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE ISSUE	COPY OF D BY THE	THE 1ST	STATEMENT IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE ISSUE	COPY OF D BY THE	THE 1ST	STATEMENT IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE 1ST R	COPY OF ESPONDEN	THE T TO	COMMUNICATED DTD.30.6.2008 ISSUED THE T HE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE SUBMI	COPY OF TTED BY	THE THE	REPRESENTATION DTD.29.9.2008 PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE 1ST	COPY OF RESPONDE	THE NT.	RECEIPT DTD.29.9.2008 ISSUED BY THE
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE WPC.	COPY OF NO.32969	THE /200	JUDGMENT DTD.6.10.2009 IN 8 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE WPC.	COPY OF NO.3581/	THE 2010	JUDGMENT DTD.1.3.2016 IN OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶32

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶38

W.P.(C) No.4204 of 2009

¶39

Dated this the 8^th day of June, 2016

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to grant complete waiver of loan amount availed by the petitioner, as could be seen from Exts.P6 and P7, in view of Ext.P1 Budget Speech made by the Minister of Finance and the Scheme, and to declare that the petitioner is a marginal farmer as mentioned in Ext.P1 since he

¶42

is holding properties below 1 hectare and eligible to get complete waiver of the loan as per Ext.P1, and for other related reliefs. Basic facts for the disposal of the writ petition are thus:

¶43

Petitioner has availed a loan of Rs.1.5 lakhs from the 1^st respondent Bank after mortgaging 1 Acre 64 Cents of property. The loan availed was for poultry farm and the amounts were disbursed to the petitioner on 24.07.2002. The said loan was defaulted by the petitioner due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. The defaulted amount

¶44

was re-structured as per the Central Government Scheme of

¶45

¶46

W.P.(C) No.4204 of 2009

¶47

re-structuring of loans on 30.03.2005, and the loan was regularized by the Bank. Contention of the petitioner is that, petitioner is holding less than 1 hectare of property and therefore as per the declaration made by the Minister of Finance in Ext.P1 Budget speech, petitioner is entitled to get waiver of the full amount of loan availed by the petitioner and defaulted subsequently.

¶48

Claiming the benefits of Ext.P1, petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 representation before the respondent Bank. However, the respondent Bank has issued Ext.P5 order dated 19.07.2008, stating that whatever benefits the petitioner is entitled, the same is already granted to the petitioner and therefore the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in Ext.P4 dated 14.07.2008 cannot be granted. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent has issued Ext.P8, directing the petitioner to avail the benefit of 25% waiver on payment of balance 75% of the amount due to the respondent Bank. It is also contended by

¶49

the petitioner that, thereafter, petitioner as per Ext.P10 remitted an amount of Rs.24,000/-. The thrust of the contention raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that, the respondent has not considered Ext.P4 application

¶50

¶51

W.P.(C) No.4204 of 2009

¶52

submitted by the petitioner taking into account the benefits available as per Ext.P1 Budget speech and therefore Ext.P5 cannot have any legal sustenance.

¶53

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respective counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶54

The question remains to be considered in this writ petition is whether Ext.P5 order passed by the 1^st respondent requires any manner of interference invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So far as Ext.P4 representation made by the petitioner is concerned, petitioner has in detail stated that he is entitled to get complete waiver of the outstanding loan in view of the declaration made in Ext.P1 Budget speech. However, on an evaluation of Ext.P5, no reasons are assigned by the 1^st respondent to decline the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in Ext.P4. The sole reason stated therein is that whatever relief petitioner is entitled to is already granted. In my view, that is not an answer to Ext.P4 representation submitted by the petitioner seeking complete waiver. The 1^st respondent ought to have stated in Ext.P5, why the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief as per the declaration made in Ext.P1. Since the 1^st respondent has passed Ext.P5 without

¶55

¶56

W.P.(C) No.4204 of 2009

¶57

taking into account the statements made by the petitioner and since the claims raised by the petitioner do not reflect in Ext.P5 order, I am satisfied that Ext.P5 order is arbitrary and irrational and therefore violative of the principles of natural justice. Ext.P5 is liable to be set aside on that count.

¶58

Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition to the extent of setting aside Ext.P5 and with a further direction to the 1^st respondent to re-consider Ext.P4 application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and taking into account Ext.P1 or any other scheme launched during the pendency of the same, granting distress relief to the farmers. Accordingly, Ext.P5 is set aside and direct the 1^st respondent to re-consider Ext.P4 and take a decision on the same in accordance with the directions contained above, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶59

Petitioner will be at liberty to point out the judgments of this Court in W.P.(C) No.32969 of 2008 dated 06.10.2009 and W.P.(C) No.3581 of 2010 dated 01.03.2016. The 1^st respondent shall take into account the principles of law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgments and

¶60

W.P.(C) No.4204 of 2009

¶61

¶62

consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with the terms of the said judgment also.

¶63

If any coercive action is pending against the

¶64

petitioner, same shall be kept in abeyance till a decision is taken by the 1^st respondent as directed above.

¶65

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶66

//true copy//

¶67

P.S. to Judge

¶68

St/08.06.2016

A.K.Abdulkhader v. the Muvattupuzha-Kothamangalam Primary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.K.Abdulkhader v. the Muvattupuzha-Kothamangalam Primary

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

Intimate Machines Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kerala State Women'S Development Corporation Ltd.

Philip M.K. Vs Land Tribunal Special Tahsildar (Lr)

V.R Joseph, Vs State of Kerala

Janardana Kurup.N. Vs Kerala State Housing Board

Muralidharan Pillai Vs District Collector, Kollam

M/S.Heera Life Style(P)Ltd. Vs the Chief Manager