JUDGMENT 1. - Because of certain reasons and natural calamities a scheme was framed to give certain concessions to the loanees who had taken loans from the public sector banks. In this regard circular was issued by the respondent Punjab National Bank (here-in-after called as the Bank) on 18.6.1990 as Farm Credit Cir. No. 8 under the subject Agricultural and Rural Debt Relief Scheme, 1990'. The main features of the scheme as per the above said letter which has been attached and placed on record by the counsel for the petitioner vide application No. 1229 dated 17.8.1995 were that the relief shall be admissible to farmers who had taken loans for agriculture and ail allied activities, like animal Husbandry, Fishing, Forestry etc. landless agricultural labour as also artisans and weavers and the relief was to be made applicable and available to the-------- i.e. non-wilful defaulter farmer by the "Annewari System" applied on the village basis. The farmer who has defaulted in payment of his loan for two or more bad crop years on the basis of the Annewari System, will be treated as a non-wilful defaulter, eligible for debt relief and similarly the defaulter framer, artisan and weaver with 'chronic' over dues i.e. over dues which remained unpaid for more than three years at the cut off date i.e. 2.10.1989 were not eligible. The concept of Annewari does not apply in this category. The relief was to cover all over dues and short term loans advanced by public sector banks, regional rural banks, co-operatives including land development banks as on 2.10.1989 and the eligible borrowers, the waiver of the principal and interest amounts was to be allowed upto a limit of Rs. 10,000/- irrespective of the size of the loan. 2. As per Chapter II attached with the circular it was mentioned that the concerned banks would provide debt relief upto a limit of Rs. 10,000/- to the borrower of eligible loan and in clause (i) of the said Chapter II. it was clarified that in case where the principal and interest exceeds Rs. 10,000/-, such borrowers should be advised about the relief provided to them and the balance outstanding in the account. It was further provided that if the waiver amount is sufficient to clear the outstanding principal and interest, such accounts should be closed and borrowers advised in writing. it was clarified that in case where the principal and interest exceeds Rs. 10,000/-, such borrowers should be advised about the relief provided to them and the balance outstanding in the account. It was further provided that if the waiver amount is sufficient to clear the outstanding principal and interest, such accounts should be closed and borrowers advised in writing. Relevant rules in letter dated 18.6.1990 are reproduced as under- "(i) Debt relief will be admissible to farmers who had taken loans for agriculture and all allied activities, like Animal Husbandry, Fishing, Forestry etc. landless agriculture labour as also artisans and weavers who had taken loans for their vocational requirement. Debt relief will cover gold or jewel loans taken for agricultural or approved purposes under the Scheme. (ii) The benefit of debt relief will be available to the following categories of borrowers: (a) Non-wilful defaulted farmers by the 'Annewari System' applied on the village basis. The farmer who has defaulted in payment of his loan for two or more bad crop years on the basis of the Annewari System, will be treated as a non-wilful defaulter, eligible for debt relief. (b) Defaulter farmer, artisans and weaver with 'chronic' overdues' i.e. overdues which remained unpaid for more than three years at the cut off date i.e. 2.10.1989. The concept of Annewari does not apply in this category. (iii) Relief will cover all overdues on short term and term loans advanced by public sector banks, regional rural banks, cooperatives including land development banks, as on 2.10.1989. (iv) In respect of eligible borrowers, the waiver of the principal and interest amounts will be allowed upto a limit of Rs. 10,000/- irrespective of the size of the loan. AGRICULTRUAL AND RURAL DEBT RELIEF SCHEME, 1990 CHAPTER-I 1. (a) The scheme shall be called 'Agricultural and Rural Debt Relief Scheme, 1990' (b) It shall come into force with effect from 15th May, 1990. (c) It shall apply to all eligible loans of public sector and Regional Rural Banks as defined hereinafter. (d)-------- (e)-------- . (f) "Effective Date : means 2nd October, 1989. (a) The scheme shall be called 'Agricultural and Rural Debt Relief Scheme, 1990' (b) It shall come into force with effect from 15th May, 1990. (c) It shall apply to all eligible loans of public sector and Regional Rural Banks as defined hereinafter. (d)-------- (e)-------- . (f) "Effective Date : means 2nd October, 1989. (g) "Eligible loan" means : (i) That part of the short-term loans, including converted re-scheduled medium term loan, availed of by an individual borrower On or after 1st April, 1986, and instalments of a term loan falling due after 2nd October, 1986, which was overdue to a bank as on the effective date and includes over due interest. Explanation : The concept of Annewari will apply to the above categories of eligible loans. (ii) "Chronic Over dues" means over dues, including overdue interest of an individual farmer, weaver or artisan or landless cultivator who borrowed a loan or loans from one or more banks, and had overdues with such bank(s), aged more than 3 years as on the effective date i.e. 2.10.1989. Explanation : The concept of Annewari will not apply to this category of eligible loans. CHAPTER-II 3. Public sector banks and Regional Rural Banks shall provide debt relief upto a limit of Rs. 10,000/- to a borrower of eligible loan. 4 .-------- 5. (1) If the waiver amount is sufficient to clear the outstanding principal and interest, such accounts should be closed and-the borrowers advised in writing about the extent of relief provided and closure of the account. In cases where the principal and interest exceeds Rs. 10,000/-, such borrowers should be advised about the relief provided to them and the balance outstanding in the account. Such borrowers should be advised to repay the balance amount." 3. The petitioner who is said to have been advanced loan of Rs. 8,000/-by the Punjab National Bank on 19.11.1986 submits that he was entitled to the waiver upto Rs. 10,000/-. It is stated that because of farming conditions, the Government of India had taken a decision for waiver of the loan to the aforesaid limit of Rs. 10,000/- for the artisans and weavers. The cut off date for determining the loan amount was 2.10.1989. He submits that he had not been properly given the waiver of Rs. 10,000/-. It is stated that because of farming conditions, the Government of India had taken a decision for waiver of the loan to the aforesaid limit of Rs. 10,000/- for the artisans and weavers. The cut off date for determining the loan amount was 2.10.1989. He submits that he had not been properly given the waiver of Rs. 10,000/- rather a notice had been issued to him in the month of April, 1995 for depositing the loan amounting to Rs. 16,353/- and states that if Rs, 10,000/- loan would have been waived, the amount deposited would not have been that much. 4. Reply has been filed by the respondent. The facts are not denied. It is submitted that the petitioner had purchased the diesal pumpset from the loan advanced to him which loan was returnable in nine annual instalments of Rs. 900/- plus interest commencing from June 1987. However, it is submitted that the waiver of three instalments was allowed to the petitioner for the total amount of Rs. 3,406/- which also included interest. It is stated that the petitioner is entitled to the relief of total three instalments which had already been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner as a waiver and, therefore, the remaining amount has to be recovered from the petitioner and for the recovery the Tehsildar Laxmangarh had been informed who is said to have issued notice to the petitioner. 5. From the various contentions of the parties, the questions which arises is whether in view of the instructions issued in June, 1990 the overdue instalments were to be waived or the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was to be waived including principal and interest or any other amount which would have been converted in the term loan. 6. Counsel for the respondent relies on the term 'eligible loan' which has been reproduced above and states that the mention of over due amount means the over due instalments for three years from the date of sanction and, therefore, submits that the amount of three instalments as submitted above i.e. 3,406./- has already been paid. 7. In my opinion, in the rules, it is nowhere mentioned that it is the over all three instalments which are to be waived. 7. In my opinion, in the rules, it is nowhere mentioned that it is the over all three instalments which are to be waived. Intention of the Government for waiving the loan in such situation to the farmers was that irrespective of the amount of loan or land possessed by such a person, a total waiver of Rs. 10,000/- is to be allowed. Clause 5(1) of Chapter II as reproduced is very clear in this regard. It has been categorically mentioned in the said clause that after waiving Rs. 10,000/- loan if no amount remains to be paid, the loan account is to be closed and if the loan interest etc. is more than Rs. 10,000/-, then in that situation, the loanee is to pay the balance amount. From the reading of the above said clause it is very clear that the intention of the Central Government was to waive the loan of Rs. 10,000/- and the loans did include the term loans, the interest and also the over due instalments, however a caution was added in the rules that a very chronic loanees are not to be given any benefit. This was so incorporated for the reason that this waiver condition had been made applicable from 1986 to 2.10.1989. The ' contention of the petitioner is just and right. The petitioner is entitled to the waiver of the loan upto the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and the calculation is to be made as loan amount stood on 2.10.1989. As per clause 5 of Chapter II of the rules reproduced above, if any loan still remains to be paid, which is over and above Rs. 10,000/-, the loanee is duty bound to pay the same, however, if after re-calculation the amount of loan interest over due instalments in the including the interest, fails short of Rs. 10,000/- or it is upto Rs. 10,000/-, in that situation the loan account of such loanee is to be closed. The intention of various circulars and the rules seem to be to give the waiver of Rs. 10,000/- irrespective of the amount of loan and not that as to give-concessional three overdue instalments. 10,000/- or it is upto Rs. 10,000/-, in that situation the loan account of such loanee is to be closed. The intention of various circulars and the rules seem to be to give the waiver of Rs. 10,000/- irrespective of the amount of loan and not that as to give-concessional three overdue instalments. If the contention of the respondent is accepted, there was hardly any difficulty for the authorities to frame the rule in this respect saying simply that the three over due instalments of the loan shall be waived subject to the upper limit of being Rs. 10,000/-. It is not so and, therefore, the contention of the respondent cannot be accepted. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed with the above said observations and direction is issued to the respondent to recalculate the amount due by waiving the total amount of Rs. 10,000/- as the loan amount on 2.10.1989. 9. Before parting with the judgment, even though the whole of the cause of action had arisen against the respondent Punjab National Bank, but the petitioner has un-necessarily impleaded State of Rajasthan, through Collector Alwar and Tehsildar Laxmangarh District Alwar as parties. They were neither proper not necessary parties. Counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3. This was un-necessary litigation brought by the petitioner against respondent Nos. 2 and 3. They were neither concerned with the sanction of the loan or repayment of the waiver of the loan but still they were made parties. State had to incur the expanses on a counsel for defending it on behalf of the respondents even through there was hardly any necessity for the State or Tehsilder to make appearance in the case as no relief is claimed against them nor any relief could be claimed against them. In such situation, even though the writ petition is being allowed against respondent No. 1, however, the writ petition is dismissed against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who were neither proper nor necessary parties. The writ petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs. 1,000/- for impleading respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as parties un-necessarily. The cost shall be deposited with the Secretary, Legal Aid Board. 10. The writ petition is allowed with the directions given above against respondent No. 1 only. *******