AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner had purchased a tractor and trailor and availed a loan of Rs. 4,97,000/-. He had also executed a pro-note
and had created a equitable mortgage by deposit of the title deed. The Petitioner had defaulted in paying the due installments towards the loan
obtained from the Indian Bank, Tenkasi Branch.
The Petitioner claims that the Central Government in consultation with the NABARD and Reserve Bank had introduced Agricultural Debt
Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008, by which certain concessions were given in the matter of loans obtained by the agriculturists. The Petitioner
claims that as per the scheme, he is entitled to get full waiver of the loan obtained by him.
On the contrary, the third Respondent bank informed the Petitioner that in terms of short term loans availed by small farmers under the Scheme
2008, he will be eligible to get waiver of Rs. 1,79,690/-out of the loan amount standing to his credit as on 29.02.2008 to the extent of Rs.
5,74,675/-. The Petitioner was asked to pay the balance amount, after getting credit for the loan waiver. The Petitioner sent a representation
stating that under the said scheme, he is eligible to get cent percent waiver. He had also asked for return of original documents and pro-note.
The third Respondent bank intimated the Petitioner by a letter dated 17.08.2010, that since he had not paid the loan amounts due they at liberty
to take appropriate steps to recover the loan. They also intimated about the appointment of the recovery agent for recovering the loan amount in
his area.
The Petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the first and second Respondents to give direction to
the third Respondent to implement the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 with a consequential direction to the third
Respondent to waive the entire agricultural loan availed by him.
It is not clear as to how the Petitioner on his own volition claim the applicability of the scheme. Even assuming that a doubt had arisen about the
interpretation of the scheme one has to go before the Central Government. A perusal of the scheme does not show that the Petitioner is eligible for
cent percent waiver for the contractual loan availed by him. The bank had already intimated to the extent of waiver under the scheme. Having
availed such a benefit, the Petitioner cannot improve his case by seeking for a direction to the first and second Respondents, who in turn was to
direct the third Respondent bank to grant appropriate waiver.
The relationship between the Petitioner and the third Respondent bank is purely contractual in nature. It is open to the third Respondent bank to
invoke the necessary clauses under the contract to recover the loan. This Court by exercising power under Article 226 cannot entertain such a writ
petition. If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the order impugned, the Petitioner can very well approach appropriate Civil suit and certainly the route
under Article 226 is not open to him.
The writ petition is misconceived and accordingly, it stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.