MANJAMMA AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Package provided under Annexure -A, to the petitioners and waive off the debt of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 4,67,790/ - availed from the 5th respondent Bank. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the petition papers.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the petitioner had initially borrowed the loan from PCARD Bank, Bheemanakone, Sagar Taluk on 08.03.2006. Subsequent thereto, the same has been taken over by the 5th respondent Bank. The case of the petitioner is that the loan waiver scheme has been circulated by Circular dated 29.05.2008 as at Annexure -A. The petitioner contends that in respect of all loans which have been disbursed prior to 31.03.2007, the benefit provided therein would be available and therefore if the benefit is extended, the petitioner would not be due to pay any amount to the 5th respondent Bank. However, in respect of the same, the contention of the 5th respondent Bank is that the said date would not be relevant with reference to disbursement, but the amount should be outstanding as on that date to avail the relief as provided.

(3.) HENCE , the question relating to the fact about the disbursement of the loan, the amount becoming over due as also the taking over of the loan by the 5th respondent and the evidence in that regard would be considered by the trial Court keeping in view the defence put forth by the petitioner. It is also to be clarified that if there are any subsequent developments which the petitioner needs to bring it to the notice of the trial Court, it would be open for the petitioner to make an appropriate application and file additional written statement, if necessary. Further keeping in view of the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue relating to the benefit available to the petitioner has not been appropriately framed in the suit, it would also be open for the petitioner to file an appropriate application seeking recasting or adding additional issues to the issues which have already been framed by the trial Court. Thereupon the petitioner would be entitled to put forth all contentions in the suit seeking benefit of the same. In that view, when the said issue is to be considered in a properly constituted suit, I am of the opinion that the prayer made in the instant petition seeking for parallel remedy need not be considered herein. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that certain similarly placed persons have been granted the benefit under the said circular, it would also be open for the petitioner to provide such details in the suit and establish it in accordance with law. In the above terms, the petition stands disposed of.