Disposed

Mr. Nellori Poornachander Rao, v. The Union of India, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC27 Feb 2012WP/12906/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in a writ petition declared the demand for repayment of loan by a farmer owning over 5 acres of land without benefits of the 2008 Debt Waiver Scheme illegal. The court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation within two weeks, directed the bank to consider it within six weeks and refrained from recovering the loan amount pending such orders.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to submit fresh representation within two weeks; respondent Bank to consider it within six weeks; stay on recovery of loan amount.

Mr. Nellori Poornachander Rao, Vs The Union of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.12906 of 2009

¶6

Between: Mr.Nellori Poornachander Rao

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND The Union of India, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, New Delhi and another

¶9

.....RESPONDENTS

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.12906 of 2009

¶13

O R D E R:

¶14

This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in demanding the petitioner to repay the outstanding loan amount without extending the benefits of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the Scheme, 2008”) as illegal and arbitrary, and

¶15

consequently to direct the 2^nd respondent for waiver of the loan obtained by the petitioner.

¶16

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submits that the aforementioned Scheme is made for persons who own agricultural land less than Ac.5.00. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefits under the aforementioned Scheme, 2008, as he is the owner of more than Ac.6.00 of land.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already submitted a representation to the 2^nd respondent-Bank, but the same has not been considered so far. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would submit a fresh representation to the 2^nd respondent Bank within a period of two weeks from today, and the 2^nd respondent be directed to consider the same, in accordance with law.

¶18

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the 2^nd respondent within two weeks from today, and on filing such representation, the 2^nd respondent is directed to consider same and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks thereafter. Till such time, the 2^nd respondent shall not recover the loan amount from the petitioner. No order as to costs.

¶19

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.16704 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

______________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,J

¶21

Dated: 27.02.2012 Dsr

Mr. Nellori Poornachander Rao, v. The Union of India, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Nellori Poornachander Rao, v. The Union of India, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Ivrcl-Infrastructures and Projects Limited Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kuchu Pruthvi Kumar Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Smt. Gaadiraju Savithri Vs The Assistant General Manager

M/s. G.S.R. Venturs Private Limited, Rep by its Authorised Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary

M/s Muralikrishna Travels, Benz Circle, Vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Ganduru K. Sampath Kumar Vs The Director, (P, a and W)