ORDER : This petition is filed praying to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order No.Sala 010139/2009-10 dated 08.09.2009, passed by the second respondent, vide Annexure-A and also the endorsement No.Sa Ni.20/F09-2010-11 dated 17.04.2010, vide Annexure-B, issued by the first respondent. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under: The petitioner is a small farmer. He had applied for loan for digging of the Well for agricultural purpose with the 3rd respondent Raita Seva Sahakari Bank and a loan of Rs. 80,000/-(Rupees Eighty Thousand only) was released in his favour by the 3rd respondent/Bank on 29.6.2005. Due to failure of crops and also due to poverty, the petitioner could not repay the loan and the loan in question has become overdue. In the meantime, the Central Government had introduced an Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. The Reserve Bank of India had circulated the said scheme to all the banks and directed to act accordingly. It is the case of the petitioner that the benefit of the said scheme was applicable to the farmers, who availed loans for the purpose of digging of the Well. The scheme specified that the farmers will be considered as small farmers, who availed loan less than Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only). As per the said scheme, the loans which were released up to 31.12.2007 and outstanding is eligible for waiver of the loan. The petitioner availed the loan which was released in the year 2005 and hence he was eligible for the benefit of loan waiver. It is the case of the petitioner that, on introduction of the said scheme, the 3rd respondent recommended the name of the petitioner as the beneficiary under the scheme to the 2nd respondent. But the 2nd respondent stated that he was not eligible and directed the 3rd respondent to send a fresh list. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent did not send the names. It is the case of the petitioner that, though he was eligible to avail the benefit of the scheme, the 3rd respondent with a deliberate intention and to deprive the rights, has not sent his name. The authorities of the 3rd respondent tried to execute the award and started demanding the petitioner and the guarantors to repay the loan. It is the case of the petitioner that, though he was eligible to avail the benefit of the scheme, the 3rd respondent with a deliberate intention and to deprive the rights, has not sent his name. The authorities of the 3rd respondent tried to execute the award and started demanding the petitioner and the guarantors to repay the loan. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to issue a legal notice and made a request to the 3rd respondent to recommend the name of the petitioner to avail the benefit of the scheme. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent recommended and requested the 2nd respondent to take into consideration of the matter and act accordingly. But the 2nd respondent bank issued an endorsement as per Annexure-A informing the petitioner that he is not eligible for the benefit of the scheme. Hence the writ petition is filed seeking appropriate relief. 3. Respondents have not filed any statement of objections. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, as per the clauses of the scheme, agriculturists who avail the loan for the purpose of improvement of the lands by digging the Well in their lands are entitled to avail the benefit of the scheme. The 2nd respondent is not justified in holding that the petitioner is not eligible for the benefit of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. Therefore, the endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent, vide Annexure-A, and the endorsement issued by the 1st respondent are wholly illegal. He further submitted that the action of respondents No.1 to 3 is arbitrary and thus, prayed for appropriate direction. 6. Per contra, learned HCGP submitted that the petitioner had availed the loan for nonagricultural purpose and not for agricultural purpose. Therefore, the State Government contended that the petitioner is not eligible to take benefit of the scheme and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 submitted that appropriate order may be passed. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that, as per the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008, investment loan means digging the Well or deepening of Wells and therefore, agriculturists who avail loan for the purpose of improvement of their lands by digging the Well in their lands are eligible and are entitled to take benefit of the scheme. 8. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties, the point which would arise for consideration of this Court is that, whether the and 2nd and 1st respondents are justified in issuing the impugned endorsements? 9. Perused material on record. As could be seen from true copy of the scheme of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Clause 3 deals with definitions. Clause 3.3 deals with ‘investment loan’, which reads as under: 3.3. ‘Investment Loan’ means (a) Investment credit for direct agricultural activities extended for meeting outlays relating to the replacement and maintenance of wasting assets and for capital investment designed to increase the output from the land, e.g. deepening of wells, sinking of new wells, installation of pump sets, purchase of tractor/pair of bullocks, land development and term loan for traditional and non-traditional plantations and horticulture; and (b) Investment credit for allied activities extended for acquiring assets in respect of activities allied to agriculture e.g. dairy, poultry farming, goatery, sheep rearing, piggery, fisheries, bee-keeping, green houses and biogas. 10. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that he had obtained the loan for digging of the Well, which is for agricultural purpose. The 3rd and 4th respondents also do not dispute the fact that the loan obtained by the petitioner was for digging of the Well. But the 2nd respondent, vide Annexure-A, issued the endorsement stating that the petitioner had obtained the loan for non-agricultural purpose. But the 2nd respondent has not considered the request as per the scheme. According to the scheme, the agriculturists who obtain loan for the purpose of improvement of the land by digging of the Wells are eligible to take benefit of the scheme. The 2nd respondent ought to have considered the matter in lieu of the scheme, but it has failed to do so. 11. Therefore, the impugned endorsement 2nd Annexure-A dated 8.9.2009 issued by the Respondent and the endorsement Annexure-B dated 17.4.2010, issued by the 1st respondent, so far as the petitioner is concerned, are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed. 12. The 2nd respondent is hereby directed to consider the representation of the petitioner as per the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 and pass appropriate order within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. The 2nd respondent is hereby directed to consider the representation of the petitioner as per the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 and pass appropriate order within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed off accordingly.