Petitioner challenged auction notice for jewel loans under Govt order waiving agricultural loans. Court held jewel loans are not agricultural loans, but granted petitioner two months to repay.
Petitioner granted two months to repay entire loan amount to respondent Society.
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.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.01.2017
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.(MD) No.1122 of 2017
S.Ganesh ..Petitioner
-vs-
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the auction notice dated 07.01.2017 on the file of the 2nd and 3rd respondent and quash the same and directing the respondents 2 and 3 to waive the petitioner's jewel loans in No.2174 dated 15.06.2015, 2175 dated 15.06.2015, 2234 dated 09.07.2015 and 2382 dated 03.09.2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kannan For R1 : Mr.M.Rajarajan Govt. Advocate For R2 & R3 : Mr.S.Sathish Kumar Addl. Govt. Pleader ****** O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the auction notice dated 07.01.2017 issued by the respondents 2 & 3, in and by which, the petitioner's jewels were put into auction pursuant to non-repayment of jewel loans. The petitioner also sought a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to waive the petitioner's jewel loans in No.2174 dated 15.06.2015, 2175 dated 15.06.2015, 2234 dated 09.07.2015 and 2382 dated 03.09.2015.
2
& 3 and pledged his jewels for loan and the respondents also sanctioned jewel loans for Rs.2,71,000/- under four different Loan Nos.2174, 2175, 2234 and 2382. According to the petitioner, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 28.06.2016 for waiving off agricultural loans and in terms of the same, the entire agricultural loans have been waived except for the loan of the petitioner; that the respondent Society issued an auction notice thereby, bringing the jewels of the petitioner to auction, which is contrary to the said Government Order and guidelines.
i) Short Term Crop loan
ii) Short Terms agricultural crop loans issued with the pledge of jewels (Jewel Loan-Agri)
iii) Short Term Crop loans which are converted as Medium Term loans (M.T.Conversion)
iv) Medium Term Agriculture loans
v) Long Term Farm Sector loans
Thus, it is the contention of the respondents that the loan availed by the petitioner does not come within the ambit of agricultural loan as per the guidelines by the Government Order and therefore, the petitioner cannot take any undue advantage over the said Government Order.
3
that the petitioner requires at least two months' time from today to clear his loan amount.
though this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned notice of auction, the petitioner is granted two months' time from today for repayment of the entire loan amount to the respondent Society, failing which, the respondents shall proceed further and thereafter, conduct auction by issuing fresh notice in respect of the jewels of the petitioner alone. It is made clear that the costs for issuance of the ensuing advertisement shall be adjusted from the amount due to the petitioner. It is further made clear that there is no obstacle for the respondent Society to go ahead with the present auction with regard to the jewels of other defaulters.
With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(RTI)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai-23.
To:
+1cc to M/s.V.Kannan, Advocate in SR.4326
W.P.(MD) No.1122 of 2017 25.01.2017
ar.
PBK/SS-3/SAR-III 25/01/2017 ::3P-5C: (IT)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition being maintainable against the Co-operative Society, the auction notice should be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K.Marappan vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal Circle, Namakkal and anotherReferred¶25
K.Marappan vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal Circle, Namakkal and another reported in 2006-4-L.W.495
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S. Ganesh
The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dindigul
The President, A.955, Sengurichi Primary, Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society
The Secretary, A.955, Sengurichi Primary, Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society
S.Vaidyathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
