1. Petitioners on approaching J&K State Co-operative Bank, were given financial assistance for carrying on their agriculture pursuits. This assistance in the order of Rs.5,77,335/-, Rs.19,000/- and Rs.26,849/- was granted in the form of loan to each of the three petitioners respectively. Petitioners allege that due to turmoil and militancy in the valley, pursuits and the activities could not be carried out. In the meantime, Government of India came up with the Debt Relief Scheme in order to give relief to the borrowers who have suffered on account of militancy in the State. Petitioners allege that under the scheme each of the three petitioners was entitled to get the relief and their loans to the extent of Rs.50,000/- each was to be written off by the Bank. Petitioners approached the Chairman and Branch Manager of the Bank (Respondents 1 and 2) for extending the benefit under Debt Relief Scheme. However, they were not given any relief and instead demand notice were issued asking all the three petitioners to pay the out-standing amounts. Not only, so soon after a public notice also appeared in daily news paper "Aftab" in its issue dt. 26-10-2002, requiring the petitioners to pay the highly inflated amounts which did not even tally with the amounts shown in the earlier demand notice. Petitioners, feellng aggrieved of the action of Respondents 1 and 2, filed a revision petition under section 160 of the J&K Co-operative Society Act 1989 before J&K Special Tribunal Srinagar, respondent No. 3. However, the revisional forum, on examination of the matter, disposed of the revision petition by order dated: 03-03-2003 directing respondents to extend the benefit of the Scheme to the petitioners if this benefit could be extended to the petitioners or any one of them. 2. This order is impugned in this writ petition on the grounds that the revisional authority has failed to appreciate the facts and has not appreciated the legal position. Accordingly, it has failed to exercise the jurisdiction as provided by Section 160 of the J&K Co-operative Society Act, 1989. The revisional forum did not send for the record and settled the accounts between the parties. Even relief under the Debt Relief Scheme, is not given to them, though petitioners are entitled to the debt relief. 3. The arguments of the counsel at this admission stage is in line with and in support of the petition as above. The revisional forum did not send for the record and settled the accounts between the parties. Even relief under the Debt Relief Scheme, is not given to them, though petitioners are entitled to the debt relief. 3. The arguments of the counsel at this admission stage is in line with and in support of the petition as above. It is not denied that all the three petitioners are borrowers of the Bank. They have taken the loans on the settled terms and conditions. The liabilities and rights interse the parties in this case are governed by the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Co-operative Society Act, 1989. The question of extending benefit under the Debt Relief Scheme of 1997 to petitioners is a matter to be considered and decided by the competent authority under the Scheme. The conditions of eligibility for seeking benefit under Scheme, as eligible loanee of the Bank, is covered by the provisions of the Scheme. There is no provision either in the Scheme or the Co-operative Society Act, which empowers the Tribunal to decide the question of eligibility of a loanee to get the benefit under the Debt Relief Scheme, which power is squarely vested with the concerned Bank Manager. There is nothing on record to show that this exercise has been undertaken or any orders are passed or decision is taken by the competent authority in the matter to give or decline the benefit to petitioners under the Scheme, of course subject to eligibility and other conditions provided in the scheme. The question of taking and settling accounts between the parties is not a matter for the revisional forum nor for this court. It is for the Bank Manager to go into that aspect of the case while deciding and determining the eligibility of loanee to get relief and it™s extent under the scheme. Not only so, once the eligibility of a loanee is determined under the Scheme by the Manager, yet such action of the Manager is to be approved by the Committee, headed by Additional Chief Secretary Finance. In such circumstances, the direction of the Tribunal to the respondents to enquire and determine whether any benefit can be extend to the petitioners or any of them under the scheme cannot be found fault with. Revisional forum has to exercise the powers within jurisdiction and parameters of law. In such circumstances, the direction of the Tribunal to the respondents to enquire and determine whether any benefit can be extend to the petitioners or any of them under the scheme cannot be found fault with. Revisional forum has to exercise the powers within jurisdiction and parameters of law. Neither the question of failure to exercise jurisdiction nor exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the Forum nor exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity nor exercise of powers in infraction of law while exercising jurisdiction arise, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned order is not vitiated. Viewed thus, in my opinion, there is no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed at thresh hold. It hardly needs to be stated that the respondents in the facts and circumstances, placed before the revisional forum and this court, are yet to exercise powers under Debt Relief Scheme, which powers the respondents are legally obligated to exercise. Any decision taken in the matter, giving a fresh cause of action, can entitle petitioner to persue remedies, if any, available under law. Disposed of.