BALAK RAM Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above titled four writ petitions own their origin to Govt. Order No. 47 -GR of 1990 Dt. 3.12.1990, made in reference to Administrative Council Decision No. 67 Dt. 5.9.1990, with regard to the Agricultural and Rural Debt Relief Scheme, 1990, (hereinafter referred to as Ëœthe Schemeâ„¢), whereby the Govt. has provided the waiving of Agricultural loans obtained by the beneficiaries from the Cooperative Banks upto the maximum of Rs 10.000/ - in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the Respondent No.1 i.e. the State of Jammu and Kashmir has to compensate the respective Banks for the money drawn by the petitioners as loans amounting to the extent of Rs. 10,000/ - for every beneficiary as a loanee to the respective banks. That the respondent -state has made a public announcement on Radio and in the Press that loans upto the extent of Rs. 10,000/ - drawn by the beneficiary have been waived off in each case by the respondent No.1. This Scheme is applicable to the loans to have been obtained by the beneficiaries from the State Bank of India, Punjab National Bank and Other Banks, for the fact that such loans have been waived off by the State -respondent No.1. The petitioners who have obtained loans from the respondent -Banks have not been given this benefit and their loans have not been waived off and the recovery proceedings are being effected against them. The petitioners, alongwith other persons, who have obtained loans upto the extent of Rs 10,000/ - constitute one class and the loans cannot be recovered from the petitioners, for the Respondent -State is under an obligation to compensate other respondent -Banks with the said money, so that they do not recover such loans from the petitioners. It is a well settled principle of law that there cannot be any discrimination among the persons of same class and if any discrimination is done among the persons of same class, it is in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners. The respondent -Banks cannot recover the amount from the petitioners, because the other similarly situated persons who have obtained loans from other Banks, have been waived off from paying Rs 10,000/ - taken by them as loan.

(3.) THE respondents in all the aforesaid writ petitions are represented by different lawyers mentioned above, and objection have been filed by them separately. For the purpose of brevity the objections in nutshell relate : The petitioners have not been able to prove anything prima facie for no specific claims have been set out by them against each respondent and, therefore, for want of specific claims the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. A number of people have joined as petitioners in the writ petitions and the petitioners are not entitled to maintain the joint petitions, as they do not constitute a well defined class nor have they a common cause of action. The loans have been taken by the individual borrowers from the concerned Institution. Assuming though not admitting, that any of the petitioners have any grievance with regard to the loans taken by them, they all have a separate cause of action for which separate writ petitions would lie. The pre -requisite for claiming relief of Mandamus is that the petitioners should have sought reliefs which has been refused by the respondents. The petitioners never approached the respondents for redressal of their grievances, if any, and as they have not chosen to approach the respondents, therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.