AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioners on approaching J&K State Cooperative Bank, were given financial assistance for carrying on their agriculture pursuits. This
assistance in the order of Rs. 5,77,3357, Rs. 19,0007and Rs. 26,849/ was granted in the form of loan to each of the three petitioners respectively.
Petitioner allege that due to turmoil and militancy in the valley, pursuits and the activities could not be carried out. In the meantime, Government of
India come up with the Debt Relief Scheme in order to give relief to the borrowers who have suffered on account of militancy in the State.
Petitioners allege that under the scheme each of the three petitioners was entitled to get the relief and their loans to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ each
was to be written off by the Bank. Petitioners approached the Chairman and Branch Manager of the Bank (Respondents 1 and 2) for extending
the benefit under Debt Relierf Scheme. However, they were not given any relief and instead demand notice were issued asking all the three
petitioners to pay the outstanding amounts. Not only so, soon after a public notice also appeared in daily news paper ""Aftab"" in its issue dt.
26.10.2002, requiring the petitioners to pay the highly inflated amounts which did not even tally with the amounts shown in the earlier demand
notice. Petitioners, feeling aggrieved of the action of Respondent 1 and 2, filed a revision petition under section 160 of the J&K Cooperative
Society Act 1989 before J&K Special Tribunal Srinagar, Resp. No. 3. However the Revisional forum, on examination of the matter, disposed of
the revision petition by order dated 3.3.2003 directing respondent to extend the benefit of the Scheme to the petitioners if this benefit could be
extended to the petitioners or any one of them.
This order is impugned in this writ petition on the grounds that the Revisional authority has failed to appreciate the facts and has not appreciated
the legal position. Accordingly, it has failed to exercise the jurisdiction as provided by Section 160 of the J&K Cooperative Society Act, 1989.
The Revisional forum did not send for the record and settle the accounts between the parties. Even relief under the Debt Relief Scheme, is not
given to them, though petitioners are entitled to the debt relief.
The arguments of the counsel at this admission stage is in line with and in support of the petition as above. It is not denied that all the three
petitioners are borrowers of the Bank. They have taken the loans on the settled terms and conditions. The liabilities and rights interse the parties in
this case are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Cooperative Society Act, 1989. The question of extending benefit under the Debt
Relief Scheme of 1997 to petitioners is a matter to be considered and decided by the competent authority under the scheme. The conditions of
eligibility for seeking benefit under Scheme, as eligible loanee of the Bank, is covered by the provisions of the Scheme. There is no provision either
in the Scheme of the Cooperative Society Act, which empowers the Tribunal to decide the question of eligibility of a loan to get the benefit under
the Debt Relief Scheme, which power is squarely vested with the concerned Bank Manager. There is nothing on record to show that this exercise
has been undertaken or any orders are passed or decision is taken by the competent authority in the matter to give or decline the benefit to
petitioner under the Scheme, of course subject to eligibility and other conditions provided in the scheme.
The question of taking and settling accounts between the parties is not a matter for the Revisional forum nor for this court. It is for the Bank
Manager to go into that aspect of the case while deciding and determining the eligibility of a loanee to get relief and its extent under the Scheme.
Not only so, once the eligibility of a loanee is determined under the Scheme by the Manager, yet such action of the Manager is to be approved by
the Committee, headed by additional Chief Secretary Finance. In such circumstances, the direction of the Tribunal to the respondents to enquire
and determine whether any benefit can be extended to the petitioners or any of them under the scheme cannot be found fault with. Revisional forum
has to exercise the powers within jurisdiction and parameters of law. Neither the question of failure to exercise jurisdiction nor exercise of
jurisdiction not vested in the forum nor exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity nor exercise of powers in infraction of law while exercising
jurisdiction arise, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned order is not vitiated.
Viewed thus, in my opinion, there is no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed at thresh hold. It hardly needs to be stated that
the respondents in the facts and circumstances, placed before the Revisional forum and this court, are yet to exercise powers under Debt Relief
Scheme, which powers the respondents are legally obligated to exercise. Any decision taken in the matter, giving a fresh cause of action, can entitle
petitioner to pursue remedies, if any available under law. Disposed of.