The High Court of Madras quashed a non-speaking order rejecting a loan waiver application under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration with reasons.
Quashing of the non-speaking order dated 21.08.2008, remand for fresh consideration with reasons, and refund of paid loan amount if waiver is granted.
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 JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.02.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.No.12522 of 2013
E.Siddheswaran
... Petitioner
Vs. 1.The Manager, State Bank of India Mettur Main Road, Omalur. 2.The Grievance Redressal Officer, The Assistant General Manager, Rural Development, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Coimbatore -641 018. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records of the 2nd respondent in ADWDR 2008/No.157 and quash the order passed therein dated 21.08.2008 and direct the respondents to grant the relief of entire Debt waiver to the petitioner in accordance with the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.P.Srinivas For Respondents : Mr.K.Chandrasekaran ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.08.2008 passed by the second respondent in ADWDR 2008/No.157 rejecting the waiver application submitted by the petitioner and seeking waiver of loan as per the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008.
2.Heard Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3.As seen from the impugned order dated 21.08.2008, the second respondent has rejected the waiver application by a non speaking order. Except for stating that the petitioner is not eligible for the loan waiver scheme, no reasons have been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ given for the said rejection. This Court is of the considered
view that the second respondent ought to have given reasons as to why the loan waiver application is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner had to close the loan account since there was a threat to auction the petitioner's jewels by the respondents. However, he submits that the petitioner is entitled for refund of the loan amount paid by the petitioner in view of the aforesaid Debt Waiver scheme.
4.In view of the non speaking order passed by the second respondent, this Court quashes the same and remands the matter back to the second respondent for fresh consideration and the second respondent shall pass final orders after hearing the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in the event of the second respondent coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for loan waiver under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, the amount paid by the petitioner towards discharge of the loan shall be refunded to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sms To 1.The Manager, State Bank of India Mettur Main Road,Omalur. 2.The Grievance Redressal Officer, The Assistant General Manager, Rural Development,State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Coimbatore -641 018. +1cc to Mr.R.Vignewhwaran , Advocate SR.No. 14099 +1cc to Mr.A.P.Srinivas , Advocate SR.No. 13825 W.P.No.12522 of 2013 sv A.SK(23/03/2020)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a non-speaking order rejecting a loan waiver application under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 can be quashed.
Whether the respondent bank was justified in not providing reasons for the rejection of the debtor's waiver application.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
E. Siddheswaran
The Manager, State Bank of India Mettur Main Road, Omalur
The Grievance Redressal Officer, The Assistant General Manager, Rural Development, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Coimbatore
Abdul Quddhose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
