Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1519 (PAT)

Dhurni Devi v. Chairman of NABARD, Bihar Region

2019-12-03

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL

body2019
Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. – Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for Uattar Bihar Gramin Bank. 2. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been filed by the appellants assailing the order dated 03.11.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in CWJC No.11498 of 2017. 3. In CWJC No.11498 of 2017, the appellants were the petitioners. They had filed the said writ petition seeking following reliefs: – “(i) For quashing the communication/ order dated 05.06.2017 issued by respondent no.4, whereby in response to earlier order passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No.11272 of 2016, has passed order rejecting claim of petitioners to get benefit under scheme of Agriculture Debit Waiver and Debt Relief’s Scheme 2008 launched by Central Government. (ii) For further to quash notices dated 07.06.2016 (annexure-1 series) issued by respondent no.5, the Branch Manager of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Kanharia Branch, Purnia for recovery of loan amount with interest of Rs.96,599/- against the principal amount of Rs.40,000/- given to the petitioners for the agricultural purposes, without extending benefits of provision of scheme namely “Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief’s Scheme 2008” of Central Government where by the agricultural loan amount were directed to be waived. (iii) For further direction upon the respondents to waive the debt/loan amount of petitioners under scheme of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief’s Scheme 2008 of Central Government and during pendency of this writ petition stay the operation of impugned notices dated 07.06.2016 contained in Annexure-1 series.” 4. Having heard the parties, vide impugned judgment dated 03.11.2017, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition finding no merit in the application. 5. The contention of the appellants is that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that agricultural loan of the appellants was waived under Agriculture Debit Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 of the Central Government. Their further contention is that the learned Single Judge also failed to consider that the appellants are illiterate persons and marginal farmers, who used to cultivate land of other land holders. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank has submitted that the appellants are vendors of fish or vegetables. They were not granted agricultural debt. They all were granted loan of Rs.40,000/- each after scrutinizing their loan applications, documents and other factors for selling vegetables or fish. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank has submitted that the appellants are vendors of fish or vegetables. They were not granted agricultural debt. They all were granted loan of Rs.40,000/- each after scrutinizing their loan applications, documents and other factors for selling vegetables or fish. Under the scheme in which loan was advanced to the appellants, they were extended a subsidy of Rs.10,000/- each. He has further contended that the benefit of Agriculture Debit Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 was available to the farmers only if it was an agricultural loan. Since all the appellants were not eligible to get any benefit under Agriculture Debit Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, they were not granted any benefit under that scheme. He has contended that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants. 7. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. 8. It would be evident from the record that no chit of paper was filed by the appellants in order to show that they were entitled to waiver of loan under Agriculture Debit Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 of the Central Government whereby agricultural loan amount to certain extent was directed to be waived. 9. In case, the appellants were not covered under Agriculture Debit Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, no mandamus could have been granted in their favour for waiving loan amount or its interest taken by them. We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition filed by the appellants finding the same to be meritless. 10. The appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.