U GOPALAKRISHNA KUNIKULLAYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in both the original petitions are agriculturists and are member of the respondent-society. The petitioner in O. P. No. 1559 of 1989 holds 2 12 acres of areca garden, about one acre of paddv field and some dry land in Uhrangala village of Kasaragod Taluk, as a joint owner along with this two sons The petitioner in O. P. No. 1771/89 is the owner of about 5 acres of paddy field, two acres of areca garden and 4 acres of dry land in Kuloor village of Kasargod Taluk jointly with his son.

(2.) The petitioners' case is that due to the increase in the costs of labour, fertilisers etc the cost of cultivation of land has increased considerably, whereas the price of agricultural produce has not only proportionately increased but has been dropping and fluctuating. To add to this there has been periodical scarcity of rains, thereby adversely affecting the cultivation due to inadequate supply of water to irrligate the properties. Due to continued draught from the year 1981 the areca garden in Kasaragod Taluk including that of the petitioners have suffered greate damage and consequently the petitioners have suffered heavy loss of income. Apart from that the existing trees and plaints in the areca garden have withered away and the petitioners were left with no money to rejuvenate the areca garden At this juncture the farmers including the petitioners were greatly relieved when the first respondent-Government came to the aid of the agriculturists by issuing orders promulgating a scheme as evidenced by Exts. P. 1 and P 2, whereby interest subsidy at the rate of 5% on loans taken from Co-operative Credit Institutions by farmers agricultural labourers was declared. According to the petitioner the scheme was given wide publicity by respondents 1 and 2. To the petitioners who had otherwise to take loans on high rates of interest from other sources, this scheme introduced for the benefit of the farmers was a great relief and the petitioners opted to make use of the same and applied for loans under the scheme to the second respondent. The scheme was originally formulated by none other than the NABARD and was adopted by the State Government. The first respondent State Government introduced the said scheme to encourage the agriculturists by way of an incentive to them, as most of the agriculturists began to lose their interest in the paddy cultivation and other agricultural crops because of the unremunerative nature of agriculture. The petitioner in O. P No 1559/89 was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 47,080/- by the second respondent-Bank to be advanced in five yearly instalment and repayable from the 7th year in five yearly instalments. Interest was payable in every year on the advanced instalments on the fixed dates without defult in which event the debtor is given interest subsidy at 5% With such subsidy the actual interest payable in 7% on the amount advanced yearly. The benefit of interest subsidy is to avail till the discharge of the debt in 5 yearly instalments after the 6th year. The petitioner was given the first four instalments amounting to Rs 26.740/- at the time of filling the original petition. It is submitted that subsequently the balance amount was also disbursed The petitioner in O. P No. 1771/89 was given two loans., one for an amount of Rs. 31.936/- and another for an amount of Rs. 25,650/, both under the very same scheme The Bank issued Ext. P3 notice dated 15-2-1988 (in O. P. 1559/89) seeking payment of the first instalment of interest which was due. It is seen from Ext P3 that the amount of interest was Rs. 3071.40 and after giving credit to the interest subsidy of Rs. 1228.55, the actual amount demanded was only Rs 1842.95, which was duly paid by the petitioner as evidenced by Ext. P.5 receipt issued by the second respondent. I Identical receipts evidencing payment after adjusting the subsidy is also produced by the petitioner in O. P. No. 1771/89- T, as is seen form Exts. P3 and P4 (in O. P. No. 1771/82).

(3.) The grievance of the petitioners is that the Government changed its mind subsequetly regarding payment of subsidy in respect of agricultural loans advanced by co-operative societies and confined the benefit of the scheme only to certain sections of farmers and restricting the benefits of such subsidy to loans of the maximum am >unt of Rs 15,000/- and advanced by those who held less than 5 acres of land and the benefits were further restricted to one member of each family. Taking into consideration the protest from the farmers the Government made some relaxation and enhanced the maximum amount from Rs, 15,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- as evidenced by Ext. P5 order dated 31-10-1988 annexed to O. P. No, 1559/89. Based on Ext. P5 the second respondent issued to the petitioner in O P. No. 1559/89 notice dated 1-2-1989 directing him to pay the entire interest without deducting the 5% subsidy. Similar notice were served on the petitioner in O P. No. 1771/89 also.