SHIVANAND B. MALAGAR Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has sought for quashing the notice at Annexures -D and D1 dated 16.08.2008 and 10.06.2009 respectively issued by the second respondent. He has also sought for a direction to the first respondent to implement the scheme i.e., Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, by giving direction to the second respondent for waiving loan of the petitioner in the interest of justice. Petitioner obtained loan to an extent of Rs. 7,50,000/ - for purchasing of tractor trailer. He is the owner and in cultivation of Sy. No. 33 to the extent of 3 acres 20 guntas situated at Kanchnal, Hobli: Chadachan, Tq. Indi, Dist. Bijapur. Though he paid the amount of Rs. 86,000/ - in installments up to 21.10.2007, he could not repay the entire loan amount. In the meanwhile, Central Government formulated the scheme called as "Agriculture debt waiver and debt relief scheme 2008". According to the petitioner, in the said scheme, nature of investment in loan i.e., purchase of tractor is covered by the debt waiver. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents instead of according benefit to the petitioner under aforementioned scheme have resorted to recovery of the loan from the petitioner by sending notices at Annexures -D and D1. Thus, this writ petition is filed praying for quashing the said notice and for consequential relief.

(2.) ANNEXURE D is a letter dated 16.08.2008 issued by the second respondent -Bank to the petitioner instructing the petitioner to sign certain records for getting waiver benefits to certain extent. The same does not actually harm the petitioner. However, under notice at Annexure -D1 dated 10.06.2009, petitioner is called upon by the second respondent -Bank to pay 75% of the outstanding loan amount under one time settlement scheme so as to get the benefit of exemption of remaining 25% of the loan. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said notice.

(3.) THE writ petition is opposed by the learned Advocates Sri A.M. Nagaral and Sri Chaitanya Kumar by contending that though the petitioner is a small farmer as contemplated under the scheme of 2008, he would be classified as 'other farmer' since the loan obtained by the petitioner exceeds Rs. 50,000/ -. Thus, according to them, petitioner is not entitled to the complete waiver of the loan but he is entitled to waiver of loan up to 25% under one time settlement scheme.