Judgment A. K. Ganguly, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by 79 persons claiming inter alia a direction upon the respondents not to recover the loan granted to the petitioners who are members of Primary Credit Societies. 2. According to the case made out in the writ petition the petitioners are small and marginal farmers. The petitioners claimed that they are members of different Primary Agriculture credit Societies, in Ram Nagar Block of bagaha Subdivision in the district of west Champaran. According to the averment made in para-8 of the writ petition, the petitioners were advanced loan by their respective primary societies in 1986. It is further stated that a manifesto was issued by the Janta Dal in the election of 1989 in which one of the promise was to write off the loan given to the farmers till 2nd October, 1989 to the extent of Rs.10,000/-. The further averment in the writ petition is that after the said election Janta Dal candidate came in power, and the then finance Minister of the Government of india provided 10,000 crores rupees in the union budget of 1990-91 in view of aforesaid announcement in the election manifesto. There is also reference in the writ petition to various announcements in regard to the said promise to write off loan made by political leaders. The petitioners contend that on the basis of said announcement and declaration, a Scheme was prepared which is dated 15th June, 1990 by the co-operative Department, Government of Bihar. The said Scheme was subsequently extended. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they are coming under the purview of the said Scheme, and in accordance with the said Scheme they are entitled to be exempted from the said loan to the extent of Rs.10,000/- in the matter of repayment of loans which are taken by them. Learned Counsel further relied on the subsequent communication of the State Government which would show that the realisation of the loan was stayed due to drought which would appear from Annexure-6, and also from annexures-7,8 and 9. Ultimately, by the communication dated 27th May, 1995, the Chief Secretary of the State government wanted to realise the same, and the petitioners being aggrieved by the same have come before this Hon ble Court. 4. Ultimately, by the communication dated 27th May, 1995, the Chief Secretary of the State government wanted to realise the same, and the petitioners being aggrieved by the same have come before this Hon ble Court. 4. Initially a writ petition was filed in the nature of public interest litigation, and the said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench was pleased to hold that the Public Interest litigation does not lie, but the individual claim may be filed before the appropriate forum. Therefore, this writ petition has been Tiled. Learned Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition has contended that the petitioners come within the perview of the said scheme, inasmuch, as in respect of their block there is a report by the District Magistrate to the effect that there has been failure of crops. The said report is dated 14th December, 1991. Learned Counsel further stated that since the State Government has stayed the realisation of the said loan the petitioners cannot be compelled to pay the same alongwith interest after so many years. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for both the District Co-operative Bank and also the State-respondents, has, of course, opposed the petitioners contention on various grounds. Learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents submits that the cases of the petitioners do not come under the said scheme. His first submission is that the scheme was kept in operation initially upto a certain period, and thereafter it was extended only upto 31st March, 1991. Counsel for the respondents further submits that apart from the aforesaid fact, the petitioners are not coming within the purview of the said scheme. If loans taken from all sources taken by the loanees do not exceed rupees 10,000/- only in that case the scheme will apply, inasmuch as, the said scheme was meant for marginal and poor farmers. The further contention of the respondents Counsel is that there was a condition that the loan must be over due between the period from 2-10-1986 to 2-10-1989. The other condition in the said scheme was that the persons should not be a wilful defaulter, and the definition of not wilful defaulter Is that there must two bad crops in the area, then the marginal farmers of that area will come under the description. Alongwith the said scheme there is a time schedule for working it out. 6. The other condition in the said scheme was that the persons should not be a wilful defaulter, and the definition of not wilful defaulter Is that there must two bad crops in the area, then the marginal farmers of that area will come under the description. Alongwith the said scheme there is a time schedule for working it out. 6. Counsel for the respondent further states that a list of beneficiary was to be prepared by the Co-ordinator of the Lead Bank. Learned Counsel further stated that in this connection during the relevant point of time there was a report of the District Magistrate within the area from which the petitioners are coming that there was a good crop. So the subsequent report of the District Magistrate which is known as "anwadi report" contained in An-nexure-5 to the writ petition, was submitted after expiry of the scheme. Therefore, the said report has no relevance. Apart from that from a perusal of the said report it appears that the said report has been prepared at the instance of local MLA. In that view of the matter, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the said report cannot be relied upon for giving any benefit to the petitioner under the scheme. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank also submitted with reference to Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit that the NAWARD has made it clear that the scheme in question cannot be extended beyond 31st March, 1991 which is the cut-of date for implementation of the scheme. 7. Apart from that learned Counsel for both the Co-operative Department as well as the Bank has submitted that 50% of the relief has to be obtained by the Central Government within the period of the scheme. So any such prayer made after expiry of the scheme is obviously not to be entertained by the department. In that view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioners in this writ petition in 1996 is not at all maintainable. The learned Counsel has also relied on the letters of the State government by which realisation of the loan was stayed. Learned Counsel for the Bank very clearly submitted that they are not concerned with those communications made by the State Government, inasmuch as, in those communications the Co-operative Bank is not a party. 8. The learned Counsel has also relied on the letters of the State government by which realisation of the loan was stayed. Learned Counsel for the Bank very clearly submitted that they are not concerned with those communications made by the State Government, inasmuch as, in those communications the Co-operative Bank is not a party. 8. Learned Counsel for the State government has stated that the communication of the State Government dated 29th July, 1993 was a general communication for stay of realisation in view of drought situation. The same has nothing to do with the scheme. The counsel very fairly submitted that those communications may be the result of the local pressure brought upon the politicians inasmuch as, the Bihar legislative Assembly has nothing to do with the scheme which is floated by the central Government through naward. The State Government is merely concerned with 50% of written off loan, but it cannot take any decision to stay the realisation of entire amount without consultation with the naward and the Central Govern-ment. Neither the NAWARD nor the central Government is a party to those letters. This Court holds that it has been rightly contended by the teamed Coun-sel for the State Government that those letters of communications are nothing but instances of populist measures which have no basis in law. 9. This Court thinks that for effective determination of the issue involved in this case the Central Government as well as the NAWARD should have been made parties to the writ application, but despite objections raised by the counsel for the respondents petitioners did not agree to make them parties, and therefore, it affects the maintainability of the writ application. 10. Apart from that on the merits the petitioner cannot enforce the claim to get the loan written off in a manner which is not permitted under the scheme. The Scheme has a definite time frame and the said time frame must be adhered to. No doubt that the said scheme was floated by way of welfare measure. The welfare measure is based on certain conditions. Similarly, the scheme has also certain conditions and one of its main condition is the time frame. Therefore, without adhering to the time frame the petitioners cannot enforce their right by coming to a writ court. No doubt that the said scheme was floated by way of welfare measure. The welfare measure is based on certain conditions. Similarly, the scheme has also certain conditions and one of its main condition is the time frame. Therefore, without adhering to the time frame the petitioners cannot enforce their right by coming to a writ court. Apart from that one of the conditions for entitlement to the measure of the Scheme is the crop report of the district Magistrate. From the affidavit filed by the Bank it appears that at the relevant point of time the report of the district Magistrate was that there was a good crop, but the report on which they are relying is the report which has been given after expiry of the scheme that too at the instance of the local MLA. It is expected that the District Magistrate who is a responsible officer will act in a responsible manner in discharge of certain duties cast upon him in connection with the Scheme, and he is not to act by granting a report on the basis of a demand of the politicians. This so called report shows how helpless is the bureaucracy today. It may be that a situation has come in our polity which makes is difficult for administrators to act with integrity, and with a sense of responsibility. But they should not succumb to the so called demand raised on political basis. The impugned report at annexure-5 is an instance of the same where the District Magistrate has failed to act on a clear perception of his responsibility. 11. This Court thinks that if this trend of functioning is not immediately arrested, it may be very difficult to sustain democratic frame work and structure on which the entire constitutional edifice and the rule of law is based. In any event the Court of law cannot endorse such type of functioning by enforcing the demand of the petitioner which is not otherwise sustainable in law. This Court is not sure as to how annexures-2 and 2/1 which are merely lists have been prepared. There is no seal or signature to those lists. There is no sign of its authentication. The list does not seems to have been prepared on any official basis. 12. This Court is not sure as to how annexures-2 and 2/1 which are merely lists have been prepared. There is no seal or signature to those lists. There is no sign of its authentication. The list does not seems to have been prepared on any official basis. 12. Apart from that in order to prove ones entitlement under the scheme, assuming but not admitting that the Scheme is still in operation, there are various factual details which have to be worked-out at the level of co-ordinator of the Lead Bank. No such thing has done in this case. No writ petition can be filed where relief depends on the working out of so many factual details. 13. In this connection, this Court refers to a Division Bench Judgment to which I am a party which was delivered in CWJC No.3534 of 1993, where learned Judges of the Division Bench took the same view that such enquiry is not permissible under Article 226 of the constitution. There is no reason for this court to take a view different from the one taken by the Division Bench in connection with similar claim. 14. Thus, considering all aspects of the matter, this Court is of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this case. This writ petition is therefore dismissed. Interim orders if any, are vacated. There will be no order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.