Cicily Peter vs The Nattika Firka Co-operative Rural Bank Limited

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.—The petitioner in the writ petition is the wife of late M.P. Peter, who had availed a loan from the respondent Bank in the year 2000. The loan was availed by the petitioner''s husband in connection with Copra processing activities that he intended to pursue. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner''s husband defaulted in the repayment of the loan and the consequent dispute that arose between him and respondent Bank, was adjudicated and an award was passed under Section 70 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, whereunder the petitioner''s husband was found liable to pay the defaulted amount together with interest to the respondent Bank. Ext. P1 is the award passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in terms of S. 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act. There was no challenge against Ext. P1 award.

It would appear that the petitioner''s husband preferred a representation before the Chief Minister, pursuant to whose directions, the joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies went into the matter and eventually the 2nd respondent issued Ext. P2 letter intimating the petitioner''s husband of the dues position as on 18.10.2007. The amount in Ext. P2 letter is shown as Rs. 5,11,901/- together with interest as on 18.10.2007. On receipt of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner approached the Debt Relief Commission, the 4th respondent herein. Although the said Commission initially granted an interim order staying recovery proceedings subject to the petitioner effecting payment of Rs. 15,000/- in three instalments, the application of the petitioner was eventually dismissed vide Ext. P6 order dated 15.07.2008. The petitioner thereafter preferred a representation before the respondent Bank and also made a request for considering her case under the Agricultural Loan Waiver Scheme floated by the State Government. This did not yield any result. The petitioner, therefore, once again approached the 4th respondent Debt Relief Commission. This time the 4th respondent passed Ext. P11 order dated 19.05.2010 whereby a relief of Rs. 1 lakh was granted to the petitioner and she was asked to remit Rs. 5 lakhs on or before 31.03.2011. The facts on record disclose that the petitioner then approached the 4th respondent with review petition seeking a modification of the terms in Ext. P11 order. This review petition was, however, dismissed by the 4th respondent by an order dated 25.01.2012. It is under these circumstances, that the petitioner approached this Court through the present writ petition challenging, inter alia, Ext. P11 order of the 4th respondent and also for a direction to the respondents to include the loan initially availed by the petitioner under the Agricultural Loan Waiver Scheme that is in force.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Bank wherein the attempts made by the petitioner, to get a waiver of the loan amount through recourse to the Agricultural Loan Waiver Scheme as also by approaching the Debt Relief Commission, have been narrated. It is pointed out that insofar as the loan availed by the petitioner''s husband was a trading loan and not an agricultural loan, there was no question of extending the benefits under the Agricultural Loan Waiver Scheme to the petitioner in respect of the said loan. It is also pointed out that substantial time has elapsed since the loan amount became due and the inaction on the part of the petitioner has virtually resulted in the respondent Bank being deprived of amounts due to it for a long time.

I have heard Sri. K.R. Krishnakumari, counsel for the petitioner and also Sri. M.C. Gopi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank.

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the loan amount initially availed by the petitioners husband is not one that could be classified as an agricultural loan for the purposes of extending the benefits under the Agricultural Loan Waiver Scheme floated by the State Government. The documents reveals that the loan was essentially a trading loan that was extended to the petitioners husband by the respondent Bank. At any rate, consequent to an application preferred by the petitioner, some relief was granted to the petitioner by the 4th respondent Debt Relief Commission which passed Ext. P11 order waiving an amount of Rs. 1 lakh from the total dues outstanding against the petitioner. As per Ext. P11 order, which is not seen impugned by the respondent Bank, the amount liable to be remitted by the petitioner is an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs which had to be remitted on or before 31.03.2011. The liability of the petitioner to this extent cannot therefore be disputed by the petitioner at whose instance Ext. P11 order came to be passed by the 4th respondent Commission. Taking into account, however, the pathetic financial condition of the petitioner as projected by counsel for the petitioner and considering the fact that the petitioner''s husband is no more and the averment that she does not have any independent means for repayment, I am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter and permit the petitioner to effect repayment of the amount mentioned in Ext. P11 order to the respondent bank within a period of 18 months by effecting payment of the said amount of Rs. 5 lakhs in 18 equal monthly instalments, the first instalment commencing on 1st September, 2014, It is made clear that in the event of the petitioner defaulting on any one of the instalments, the benefit of this judgment shall not enure to the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed as above.