AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J. Chelameswar, C.J.—Aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.02.2009 in W.P.(C) No. 2874 of 2009, the unsuccessful petitioner therein preferred the present appeal. The writ petition is filed with the prayer as follows:
Issue a writ of mandamus or writ of similar nature or order or direction commanding the respondents to give the petitioner the benefit of complete waiver of their agricultural loan as per Ext.P3 scheme and to write off the petitioner''s loan account forthwith;
The pleadings are absolutely vague and imprecise. The petitioner is stated to be a "registered organisation" at paragraph 1 of the writ petition. What exactly is the nature of the organisation is not described in the writ petition nor described as to the nature of the registration, claimed by the petitioner organisation. The grievance in the writ petition is that the petitioner availed an agricultural loan of Rs. 7 lakhs from the 2nd respondent on 31.06.2006 by pledging properties of 8 members of the petitioner samithi. No further details regarding the nature of the pledge or the properties pledged are available on record.
It is further stated that the Union Finance Minister in his Budget Speech for 2008-09, announced a Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme for farmers. Claiming that the petitioner samithi is also entitled for the benefit of the abovementioned Debt Waiver Scheme, it appears that the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent and complaining that no action was taken on the said representation, the instant writ petition was filed.
By the judgment under appeal, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the organisation, such as the petitioner samithi, is not entitled for the benefit of the abovementioned Scheme. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:
According to the standing counsel, petitioner is not eligible for the benefit of Ext.P2 and that Ext.P4 application made by them was considered and they were informed by letter dated 22.07.2008 that they are ineligible for the benefit of Ext.P3. The counsel for the respondents points out that in terms of Clause 4.2(b) of Ext.P3, agricultural finance to corporates, partnership firms, societies other than cooperative credit institutions(referred to in para 3.4) and any other similar institution shall not be included among the eligible categories. Co-operative credit institution is also defined in Clause 3.4. Admittedly the society consists of individuals who are agriculturists. In view of the above provisions of the scheme, a society like the petitioner stands excluded. If that be so, the stand taken by the Bank that the petitioner is ineligible for the benefit deserves to be upheld and I do so.
Nothing brought to our notice to demonstrate that the above conclusion of the learned Judge is legally unsustainable. In the circumstances, we do not see any merit in the appeal. The Writ Appeal is therefore dismissed.