JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “(i) To direct the Respondent No.1 [NABARD) to immediately proceed in the matter of release of the remaining loan waiver/loan relief amount of Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme [AWDWRS-2008] to the eligible beneficiaries covered under the Dhanbad Central Cooperative Bank (Dhanbad CCB) as also covered under 78 Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society [PACS] affiliated to the Dhanbad CCB, on the basis of identification of such beneficiaries made in the Audit Report prepared by the Senior Auditors of the Department of Finance [Audit] bearing No.05/2013-14 in the matter of AWDWRS-2008 (ii) NABARD be directed not to proceed in the matter of release of loan waiver/ loan relief amount to the eligible beneficiaries on the basis of the report got prepared by the Managing Director of the Dhanbad CCB pursuant to his Letter No.115/13 dated 14.05.2013 and his Letter No.264/13 dated 16.07.2013 because of its being unauthentic, unilateral, arbitrary and also because of its being violative of the directives of NABARD contained in its Letter No.196 dated 09.04.2013 and Letter No.1782 dated 31.07.2013. (iii) To quashing the impugned Letter No.NB.JH.DOR/4247/PCD-11/2013-14 dated 12.02.2014 [Annexure-13], whereby and where under the Deputy General Manager, NABARD has directed the Managing Director of the Dhanbad Central Co-operative Bank Limited to refund the amount of Rs.16,95,56.268=75 paise to NABARD for onward remittance of the Government of India at the earliest.” 2. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of 53 Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society [PACS] all under the Dhanbad Central Cooperative Bank (Dhanbad CCB) claiming relief under Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are elected chairman of Raghunathpur Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society (Raghunathpur PACS) and Telmocho Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society (Telmocho PACS) respectively and the writ petition has been filed also on behalf of various 51 other Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Societies (hereinafter referred as PACS) all under the Dhanbad Central Cooperative Bank (hereinafter referred to as Dhanbad CCB) whose names have been mentioned and those who have signed in the Resolution dated 09.02.2014 (Annexure-1). Cause of action. 3. Cause of action. 3. Cause of action for the present proceedings has been mentioned in paragraph 6 of the writ petition wherein the petitioners have stated that they are aggrieved and are challenging the Act of National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development (hereinafter referred to as 'NABARD') in withholding payment of the debt waiver/debt relief amount to the eligible farmers/beneficiaries of their respective PACS granted by the Government of India under a scheme known as Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme (hereinafter referred as 'ADWDRS'-2008). The scheme has been brought on record by the respondent NABARD through their counter affidavit as Annexure-R/1. 4. Arguments of the petitioners. (a) The ADWDRS scheme of 2008 was launched by the Government of India in May 2008 for the entire country in order to provide debt waiver to small and marginal farmers and debt relief to other farmers. As per the scheme, the nodal agency was NABARD with respect of Regional Rural Banks and Co-operative Credit Institutions. Accordingly, the District Central Co-operative Banks and the Regional Rural Banks operating within the State of Jharkhand were advised to submit their claim to NABARD as per the guidelines. (b) The Dhanbad CCB (respondent no. 3) submitted a claim of Rs.30,73,92,00.00 to NABARD against ADWDRS which included the claim forwarded by its affiliated PACS against which an amount of Rs.17,44,88,000.00 was initially released to the Dhanbad CCB. NABARD received a complaint and it carried out a study to assess the proper implementation of the scheme by Dhanbad CCB and detected certain irregularities. (c) The Principal Central Accountant General (Audit), Jharkhand, Ranchi (CAG) also undertook a performance audit of the debt waiver and debt relief of 3 CCBs including Dhanbad CCB and in the said performance audit, CAG detected the irregularities committed by lending institutions in implementation of ADWDRS and in the light of the observation of CAG, it was decided that the banks will refund the ineligible amount as pointed out by CAG and accordingly, the Dhanbad CCB refunded Rs.44,66,111.000 and in addition it also refunded Rs. 4,65,620.25 for non-utilization of fund given for One Time settlement (OTS) scheme under the ADWDRS. Thus, the Dhanbad CCB refunded an aggregate amount of Rs.49,31,731.25 only out of Rs.17,14,88.000.00, leaving unrefunded sum of Rs.16,65,56,268.75. 4,65,620.25 for non-utilization of fund given for One Time settlement (OTS) scheme under the ADWDRS. Thus, the Dhanbad CCB refunded an aggregate amount of Rs.49,31,731.25 only out of Rs.17,14,88.000.00, leaving unrefunded sum of Rs.16,65,56,268.75. (d) It is submitted that in view of the irregularities having been detected in the implementation of the aforesaid scheme of 2008 by Dhanbad CCB, NABARD was constrained to decide to recall the released amount of debt relief/debt waiver of Rs.17,44,88,000.00 from Dhanbad CCB and the grievance of the petitioners is that a large number of beneficiaries were already issued loan waiver certificates and the remedy was by undertaking a proper exercise to identify and correct the errors and thereby honour the ADWDRS scheme of the Govt. of India. (e) It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that wherever loan is provided to the agriculturists directly by PACS out of their own funds, the claim applications for waiver was prepared by PACS at their own level and wherever loan were provided to the agriculturists by the Dhanbad CCB out of their fund, the claim applications for waiver was prepared by the respective branches of Dhanbad CCB within whose jurisdiction the concerning agriculturists were falling. It is their further case that the Dhanbad CCB was to act as a collecting agent for collecting both the category of claim applications either coming from PACS or coming from branches of Dhanbad CCB and all the claim applications of eligible borrowers so collected was required to be subjected to procedure of 100% checking by the auditors/senior officers of Dhanbad CCB. (f) It is the case of the petitioners that Dhanbad CCB was under supersession since January 2007 and the affairs of Dhanbad CCB during the said period when the ADWDRS was launched in 2008 was entirely managed by its the then Managing Director who was under an obligation to carry out the guidelines/instructions of NABARD in the matter of implementation of the scheme of loan waiver and debt relief under ADWDRS. (g) It is their further case that the team of auditors constituted by the Joint Secretary, Department of Finance (Audit) State of Jharkhand was constituted to conduct a special audit with regard to the implementation of the ADWDRS of 2008 by Dhanbad CCB but initially the said team could not proceed on account of non-submission of proper documents to them by the lending institutions and in the meantime, NABARD issued two letters to the Managing Director of Dhanbad CCB dated 05.03.2013 and 09.04.2013 directed him to get the list of borrowers/beneficiaries verified afresh at his own level in order to asses the lapse in the implementation of ADWDRS of 2008 by undertaking cent percent re-verification through branch managers followed by 100% checking by concurrent auditors/senior officials of the head office of the bank. (h) In the man time the Managing Director, Dhanbad CCB directed the Assistant Grade employees of the Head Office of the bank vide office order dated 14.05.2013 and 16.07.2013 directing them to undertake cent percent verification of the debt waiver/debt relief claim of Dhanbad CCB and that of PACS. (i) It is further case of the petitioners that Dhanbad CCB ought to have informed NABARD that it did not have competent man power to do the required verification but instead of doing so, the assistant grade employees carried out the work of branch manager in the capacity of in-charge branch managers. The employees of the assistant grade lodged a joint written protest on 14.08.2013 but the Managing Director and the Administrator of Dhanbad CCB forced them to carry out the re-verification work and the re-verification report was finally submitted. Thus the re-verification report submitted above was not in accordance with the directions issued by NABARD contained in letter dated 31.07.2013 in as much as the PACS were neither directed by the administrator nor by the managing director of Dhanbad CCB to prepare themselves for re-verification and it is alleged that the employees of Dhanbad CCB did not visit the PACS and the re-verification report was prepared at the head office of Dhanbad CCB at the instance of the managing director of Dhanbad CCB. It is case of the petitioners that on the basis of absolutely unjustified, faulty and unacceptable re-verification report, the managing director of Dhanbad CCB issued letter dated 16.12.2013 and 20.12.2013 to the concerning PACS directing them to ensure refunding back of the ineligible amount identified in the re-verification report and simultaneously directed the PACS to explain as to why the legal action should not be taken against them for submitting wrong claims. Consequently, a large number of PACS represented before the Managing Director of Dhanbad CCB to enable them to register their protest relating to all faulty aspects of the re-verification report. (j) In the meantime, the team of senior auditors constituted vide letter dated 09.06.2010 issued by the Joint Secretary Department of Finance (Audit) prepared a report bearing No. 05/2013-14 in the matter of implementation of the aforesaid scheme by Dhanbad CCB, a copy of which was sent to the managing director of Dhanbad CCB vide letter no. 71 dated 12.11.2013. (k) Thereafter the representatives of the concerning PACS affiliated to Dhanabd CCB held a meeting on 09.02.2013 and unanimously adopted and resolved to object to the re-verification report submitted by the managing director of Dhanbad CCB alleged to be in violation of the letter of NABARD dated 31.07.2013 and opposed the implementation of such report and approved the report bearing no. 5/2013-14 prepared by the senior auditors by the order of Joint Secretary, Department of Finance (Audit) and NABARD was requested to act and issue appropriate direction to PACS for compliance in accordance with the findings recorded in the said report. Accordingly, a representation was filed before the Chief General Manager, NABARD making following prayers: - “(i) That the re-verification report got prepared by the Managing Director of the Dhanbad CCB through its assistant grade employees as stated in this representation be discarded, interalia for the reason of its being entirely unauthentic, unilateral, arbitrary and for its being violative of the direction of NABARD contained in NABARDS letter no. 1782 dtd. 31.7.2013; (ii) That the re-verification report prepared by the senior auditors of the Dept. 1782 dtd. 31.7.2013; (ii) That the re-verification report prepared by the senior auditors of the Dept. of Finance (Audit) bearing no 05/2013-14 and stated in this representation petition, be kindly accepted by NABARD and on the basis of it, the remaining loan waiver amount be released to the eligible beneficiaries and the matter pertaining to ADWDRS-2008 may kindly be finally settled, (iii) That the errors which crept in in the claim applications were involuntary and largely due to want of appropriate instructions, lack of coordination, screening and monitoring at the level of the Dhanbad CCB and therefore a lenient view aught to be taken by NABARD favouring the PACS and discarding punitive measures, whatsoever against them.” Ultimately, when no action was taken, present writ petition was filed for the reliefs as quoted above. Counter affidavit by NABARD. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by NABARD wherein it has been clearly stated that the Dhanbad CCB has submitted audited debt waiver claim amounting to Rs.30,73,92,000 lacs; on 22.10.2008 NABARD released an amount of Rs. 1557.93 lacs to Dhanabad CCB and further released an amount of Rs. 186.95 lacs to Dhanbad CCB and thus total amount of Rs. 1744.88 lacs was released to Dhanbad CCB. In the meantime, on 15.05.2009 an undated complaint letter was received by NABARD alleging misappropriation in the claims made under the scheme and consequently on 18.06.2009 the amount of Rs. 242.240 lacs pertaining to Dhanbad CCB was withheld and no claim under the scheme were to be released to Dhanbad CCB. On 27.05.2009 NABARD requested the Registrar, Co-operative Society to examine the allegations made by the complainant and submit a report and NABARD had carried out the investigation during the period from 26.08.2009 to 28.08.2009 and it was decided to recall the released amount of Rs.17,44,88,000/- from Dhanbad CCB. 6. Subsequently the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) carried out sample audit of claims and found large scale irregularities and as a follow up of CAG audit observation, Dhanbad CCB refunded Rs.44,66,111 and Rs.4,65,620.25 for non-utilization of OTS within the scope of the scheme in the beginning and the balance amount of Rs.16,95,56,268.75 was to be received from Dhanbad CCB. Later on, the Dhanbad CCB started refunding certain amount in installments and has refunded total of Rs.97,47,595.25/- up to 10.02.2021. 7. Later on, the Dhanbad CCB started refunding certain amount in installments and has refunded total of Rs.97,47,595.25/- up to 10.02.2021. 7. It has also been asserted that it was decided to complete re-verification exercise by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies in respect of PACS and forward the report to NABARD. The re-verification report in respect of 78 PACS was forwarded to Dhanbad CCB vide letter dated 25.06.2014 and as per the re-verification exercise, Rs.24,82,99.984/- was the ineligible amount in respect of PACS and in this background it has been asserted by NABARD that the plea raised by the petitioners that for the mistake of Dhanbad CCB, PACS should not suffer, is baseless. 8. It has also been mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by NABARD that NABARD has not proceeded on the basis of report prepared by Managing Director of Dhanbad CCB, rather the NABARD has proceeded with regard to ineligible claim amount on the basis of report by the Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand and also performance audit by CAG. Rejoinder of the petitioners. 9. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners by referring to Resolution taken in the meeting dated 28.07.2015 held between the State Co-operative Banks, District Co-operative Banks and NABARD wherein the matter was again discussed vide agenda no. 7 (iv). However, this court finds that the relevant page dealing with the discussions vide aforesaid agenda no 7(iv) has not been annexed by the petitioners with the rejoinder. Findings of this Court. Salient features of Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme (ADWDRS -2008) 10. Some of the salient features of ADWDRS 2008 are as follows:- a. The scheme is meant to cover direct agricultural loans extended to marginal and small farmers and other farmers by Scheduled Commercial Banks, Regional Rural Banks, Co-operative Credit institutions (including Urban Co-operative Banks) and local area banks. b. Direct Agricultural Loans, Short Term Production Loans, Investment Loans, Co-operative credit institutions, Marginal Farmers, Small Farmers, other farmers have been duly defined under the ADWDRS 2008 and explanations appended thereto. b. Direct Agricultural Loans, Short Term Production Loans, Investment Loans, Co-operative credit institutions, Marginal Farmers, Small Farmers, other farmers have been duly defined under the ADWDRS 2008 and explanations appended thereto. c. Clause 3.4 defines 'Cooperative Credit Institution' to mean a cooperative society that (i) provides short-term crop loans to farmers and is eligible for interest subvention from the Central Government, or (ii) carries on banking activities regulated or supervised by RBI or NABARD, or (iii) is part of the Short-Term Cooperative Credit Structure or Long-Term Cooperative Credit Structure in a State or Union Territory. d. The eligible amount has also been prescribed. It has been specifically mentioned in clause 4.3 that the scheme shall not apply to any loan disbursed by a lending institution prior to 31st March 1997. e. 'Debt waiver' has been defined under clause-5. In case of small or marginal farmers, the entire eligible amount shall be waived. f. 'Debt relief' has been defined under clause-6 stating that in case of other farmers there will be a one-time settlement scheme (OTS) under which the concerned farmers will be given a rebate of 25% of the eligible amount subject to the condition that the farmer pays the balance of 75% of the eligible amount with a further proviso that in the case of revenue districts listed at Annexure-1 to the scheme, other farmers will be given OTS rebate of 25% of the eligible amount or Rs.20,000/- whichever is higher subject to the condition that the farmers pay the balance of the eligible amount. g. As per the definition of eligible amount as mentioned in clause-4, the amount is to be calculated together with applicable interest for short terms production loan and for investment loans, the installment of such loan was to be overdue (together with applicable interest on such installments) with other conditions mentioned in the definition itself. h. The mode and manner of implementation of the scheme has been prescribed in clause-7 which inter alia provides that the co-operative credit institutions are to prepare two lists one consisting of small and marginal farmers who are eligible for debt waiver and the second consisting of other farmers who are eligible for debt relief under the scheme. The list should also include particulars of the land holding, the eligible amount, the amount of debt waiver or debt relief proposed to be granted in each case. The list should also include particulars of the land holding, the eligible amount, the amount of debt waiver or debt relief proposed to be granted in each case. The list is to be displayed on the notice board of the branch of banks/society on or before June 30, 2008. It also provides that a farmer classified as small farmer or marginal farmer will be eligible for fresh agricultural loan upon the eligible amount being waived and the farmer classified as other farmer eligible for OTS relief were required to give an undertaking agreeing to pay his share (eligible amount – amount of OTS relief) in not more than three installments and the first two installments was to be for an amount not less than 1/3rd of his share. The last date for payment in the case of three installments has been fixed to be 30th September 2008, March 31st 2009, and June 30th 2009 respectively and the aforesaid undertaking was required to be given in such form as may be prescribed by RBI/NABARD. The amount of OTS relief (i.e. the central government share) was to be credited to the account of the farmers upon payment of full share of the concerned farmer. In case of short-term production loan, the concerned farmers were eligible for fresh or term production loan upon paying 1/3rd of their respective share and in case of an investment loan for direct agricultural activities or allied activities the concerned farmers were eligible for a fresh investment loan upon payment of full share by the concerned farmer. i. It has been further mentioned that the Reserved Bank of India shall be the nodal agency for the implementation of the scheme in respect of the scheduled commercial banks, urban co-operative banks and local area banks and NABARD shall be the nodal agency in respect of regional rural banks and co-operative credit institutions. j. There is also a provision for interest and other charges under clause-8. k. Clause 9 of the scheme deals with certificate of debt waiver or debt relief which inter alia provides that in the case of small and marginal farmers upon waiver of eligible amount the lending institutions shall issue certificate to that effect that the loan has been waived and specifically mention the eligible amount that has been waived. k. Clause 9 of the scheme deals with certificate of debt waiver or debt relief which inter alia provides that in the case of small and marginal farmers upon waiver of eligible amount the lending institutions shall issue certificate to that effect that the loan has been waived and specifically mention the eligible amount that has been waived. In the case of other farmers, upon granting OTS relief the lending institution was required to issue certificate to that effect that the loan account has been settled to the satisfaction of the lending institution and specifically mention the eligible amount, amount paid by the farmer as his share and the amount of OTS. The certificate was required to be issued in such form as may be prescribed by RBI/NABARD and upon issuing the certificate the lending institution was required to take an acknowledgement from the farmer. l. There is further obligation upon the lending institution by virtue of clause 10 of the scheme which inter alia provides that every lending institution shall be responsible for the correctness and integrity of the list of farmers eligible under this scheme and also about the particulars of the debt waiver or debt relief in respect of each farmer. Every document maintained, every list prepared and every certificate issued by a lending institution for the purposes of 'ADWDRS'-2008 was to bear the signature and designation of an authorized officer of the lending institution. m. Every lending institution was under an obligation to appoint one or more Grievance Redressal Officer for each state (having regard to the number of branches in that state). The name and address of the Grievance Redressal Officer concerned was to be displayed in each branch of the lending institution. The Grievance Redressal Officer has been conferred the authority to receive representations from the aggrieved farmers and pass appropriate orders thereon and orders of the Grievance Redressal Officer was final. The name and address of the Grievance Redressal Officer concerned was to be displayed in each branch of the lending institution. The Grievance Redressal Officer has been conferred the authority to receive representations from the aggrieved farmers and pass appropriate orders thereon and orders of the Grievance Redressal Officer was final. It has also been provided therein that any farmer who is aggrieved on the ground that his name has not been included in either of the two lists referred to paragraph 7.1 or on the ground that his name has been included in the wrong list or on the ground that the relief granted to him is calculated wrongly may make a representation through the branch from which he received the loan or directly to the Grievance Redressal Officer of the lending institution concerned and every such representation was to be disposed of within 30 days of the receipt thereof. n. There is a provision for audit and special audit in terms of clause 11. o. There is specific provision in connection with monitoring of the scheme under clause 14 which provides that there shall be constituted a National Level Monitoring Committee consisting of as many as seven members including the chairman NABARD to monitor the implementation of the aforesaid scheme. The annexure to the scheme includes the districts Bokaro, Chatra, Deoghar, Dhanbad, Dumka, Garhwa, Godda, Hazaribagh, Jamtara, Koderma, Latehar, Pakur, Palamau and Sahebganj District from the State of Jharkhand. 11. NABARD is a body established by an Act of Parliament namely The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 for providing and regulating credit and other facilities for promotion and development of agriculture, small scale, cottage and village industries etc. in terms of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, (As applicable to co-operative societies). NABARD on behalf of RBI has been empowered/authorized to inspect co-operative banks and exercise supervisory power over them in the matter of finance. 12. In order to extend the relief to the eligible farmers, the first step was to identify such farmers and after identification the eligible amount was to be credited by the banks concerned to the loan account of the individual loanees. 12. In order to extend the relief to the eligible farmers, the first step was to identify such farmers and after identification the eligible amount was to be credited by the banks concerned to the loan account of the individual loanees. However, before giving such credit, the individual branch wise/institution wise claim was to be subjected to certification and audit by internal auditors of respective banks as a part of internal audit exercise which was further subject to audit by chartered accountants and thereafter the consolidated claim was to be forwarded to the state co-operative bank who was to forward it to NABARD for reimbursement. 13. Pursuant to the said scheme Dhanbad Central Co-operative Bank submitted its debt waiver claim for an amount of Rs. 3073.92 lakhs and substantial amount of Rs. 1744.88 lacs were released by respondent no. 1 in the year 2008. The amount inter-alia, included the claim relating to PACS under Dhanbad CCBs. It is not clear from the records as to the amount which related to PACS under Dhanbad CCBs. 14. Thereafter respondent no. 1 received a complaint on 15.05.2009 alleging misappropriation in the claim made under ADWDRS in the Dhanbad CCB. Consequently on 18.06.2009 further disbursement was withheld. 15. As a consequence of the complaint on 27.05.2009 NABARD requested the Registrar, Co-operative Societies to examine the allegation and submit a report. 16. The nature of irregularities as is apparent from the records of this case is apparent from letter dated 05 March 2013 and 9th of April 2013 seeking re-verification of the entire list of beneficiaries afresh by the lending institutions including PACs and to assesses the lapses in the implementation of ADWDRS 2008 are under – (i) Benefits extended to in-eligible farmers. (ii) Benefits extended for ineligible purposes. (iii) Excess/less benefits extended to eligible accounts (iv) Reimbursement of in-admissible charges to banks. (v) Amount of assistance extended to Micro Financial Institutions instead of extending it directly to the beneficiaries for which reimbursement was claimed. (vi) Non-issuance of debt waiver and debt relief certificates. (vii) Identify eligible farmers, if any who were not extended benefits. Appropriate directions were also issued for the aforesaid purpose. 17. (v) Amount of assistance extended to Micro Financial Institutions instead of extending it directly to the beneficiaries for which reimbursement was claimed. (vi) Non-issuance of debt waiver and debt relief certificates. (vii) Identify eligible farmers, if any who were not extended benefits. Appropriate directions were also issued for the aforesaid purpose. 17. A number of letters were issued to Dhanbad CCB to ensure re-verification of the beneficiaries under the aforesaid ADWDRS 2008 but the grievance of the petitioners is that no such verification was done with respect to beneficiaries under the PACS on account of inadequate /improper personnel employed for the purposes of verification and they did not even visit PACS to verify the records. The re-verification report submitted by the managing director of Dhanbad CCB has been challenged and it has been alleged that letters dated 16.12.2013 and 20.12.2013 asking certain PACS were issued to refund the ineligible amount identified in illegal re-verification report and by the aforesaid letters legal action was also contemplated for submitting wrong claims. These actions/ communications/reports were protested by PACS. 18. In the meantime, a sample audit of claims was also conducted by Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) who found large scale irregularities vide audit report no. 05/2013-14 (annexure-12), a copy of which was sent to the Managing Director of the Dhanbad CCB vide its letter No. 71 dated 12.11.2013. The aforesaid sample audit report inter-alia, found as under: - (i) The relief with respect to Rs.38,80,561.00 was not admissible as in the list of beneficiaries with respect to loan waiver of some PACS there was violation of clause 4(3) of the scheme in as much as the loans which were prior to 01.4.1997 were not entitled for waiver. The list of such person was enclosed with the Audit report. (ii) Rs.16,93,875 was found to be ineligible on the allegation of alleged violation of clause 4(1) of the aforesaid scheme. (iii) The amount of Rs.53,02,965.00 was found to be in relation to ineligible PACS by observing that the same was in violation of clause 7 of ADWDRS. (iv) With respect to Rs.1,64,799/- it was observed that the same was in violation of clause 8.3 of the scheme in as much as excess interest was allowed. (iii) The amount of Rs.53,02,965.00 was found to be in relation to ineligible PACS by observing that the same was in violation of clause 7 of ADWDRS. (iv) With respect to Rs.1,64,799/- it was observed that the same was in violation of clause 8.3 of the scheme in as much as excess interest was allowed. (v) With respect to Rs.37,83,589.00, it was observed that the same was in violation of clause 1 of the scheme in as much as the benefit of agricultural loan waiver was extended to those to whom the loan was not given for agriculture purpose. (vi) With respect to an amount of Rs.3,56,752/- it was observed that the same was in violation of clause 9 of the scheme. It was alleged that required certificate with regard to loan waiver was not distributed and the Nil figure did not reflect in the account due to which the PACS have realized substantial money from the beneficiaries and therefore such amount was required to be refunded to the beneficiaries failing which the claim of loan waiver with respect to such amount was to be rejected. (vii) With respect to Rs.5,88,622/- it was observed that the benefit of loan waiver to the extent of 25% of principal and interest or Rs.20,000/- whichever was more was to be allowed as the concerned farmer would deposit 75% to the bank. It was observed that since the farmers did not deposit 75% to the bank within the stipulated time, they were not entitled for benefit from NABARD and the said 75% amount was kept by the bank in sandatory account. As per the norms, the said amount was to be returned to NABARD which was not done. Accordingly, the claim of debt relief to the extent of Rs.5,88,622/- was objected. (viii) An amount of Rs.19,68,350/- of debt relief was disallowed on the ground that the said amount was claimed twice. (ix) An amount of Rs.1,77,282 was disallowed on the ground that the name of as many as eight beneficiaries was repeated which figured in the list at Serial No. 323 to 330 was repeated in Sr. No. 331 to 338. The name of such persons were mentioned in the report. (ix) An amount of Rs.1,77,282 was disallowed on the ground that the name of as many as eight beneficiaries was repeated which figured in the list at Serial No. 323 to 330 was repeated in Sr. No. 331 to 338. The name of such persons were mentioned in the report. (x) With respect to an amount of Rs.1,72,09,204/- it was observed in the Audit report that there was comment by the Block-co-operative Officer/ Audit Officer that the loan was extended for non-agricultural purpose, but the date of such entry was not clear and it was not clear as to why the loan which was extended towards non-agricultural purpose was not deducted from the relief. (xi) It has been further observed that upon verification of record it was found that for Kura dudhi gazar (Chas) PACS and for Sardaha Jaitara (Chas) PACS, the claim of loan waiver was accepted only to the extent of Rs.1,65,516.00 and Rs.2,80,800.00 and was placed before NABARD by the bank against their claim of Rs.290,480/- and 6,09,350/- respectively. (xii) Accordingly, the differential amount of the sum of aforesaid two figures was removed from the entitlement and there was an observation that the claim of Rs.1,72,09,204.00 was required to be examined at the level of the bank as to whether such claim is fit for debt relief. It was observed that after examination of such claim the findings be forwarded to the audit department. (xiii) Further irregularities were found that the Dhanbad CCB does not have the accounts/audit report in connection with different PACS and such non availability was in violation of the directives issued by the Co-operative department. It was observed that upon inspection it was found that the details with regard to loan waiver/debt relief which was said to be verified by the District Co-operative Officer and the concerned auditor contained repeated over writing without any initial and it was observed that the bank did not keep the records properly. (xiv) Further observation was that the records in connection with loan and loan waiver certificate were not completely filled up at places the calculation of interest was mentioned as lump sum amount and after loan waiver, the account of the beneficiary did not show waiver of loan. After the closure of account, the certificate with respect to loan waiver was not distributed after making the account of the beneficiary as NIL. After the closure of account, the certificate with respect to loan waiver was not distributed after making the account of the beneficiary as NIL. It was also observed that as per the provision of Co-operative Societies Act, the PACS were under an obligation to provide a copy of the loan register to the bank, but no such loan register of PACS was found in the concerned bank. (xv) It was also observed that there were numerous irregularities in connection with the loan waiver/debt relief with respect to different PACS and the explanation sought to be given by the concerned authority was that the managers of PACS were not duly trained and in the audit report it was observed that the managers of PACS be trained to do work in proper manner. The enclosure to the audit report gave the list of a number of beneficiaries with respect to which the objections raised. 19. Thus, the audit report no. 05/2013-14 (annexure-12) itself reflects large scale irregularities and that further verification was required. The audit report no. 05/2013-14 (annexure-12) does not indicate that the entire claim of Dhanbad CCB was verified rather it was only a sample audit. 20. It is not in dispute that that an amount of Rs.97,47,595.25 out of the disbursed amount under ADWDRS-2008 has already been refunded to NABARD by Dhanbad CCB which is apparent from the letter no. 1013 dated 18.02.2021 and admitted by NABARD in the counter affidavit dated 07.11.2023. Further it is stated in the counter affidavit that Dhanbad CCB had submitted a total claim for Rs.30,73,92000 to NABARD against which 17,44,88,000 was released initially and on CAG audit report and report on non-utilization, Dhanbad CCB refunded part amount and an amount of Rs.16,95,56,268.57 remained unrefunded up to 2023. 21. It has been asserted by NABARD in the counter affidavit that based on a decision held on 24.01.2014, Dhanbad CCB was directed to refund the amount and complete 100% verification in respect of PACS and submit the report to NABARD. 22. It has also been asserted that NABARD had not proceeded on the basis of report prepared by Managing Director of Dhanbad CCB but had proceeded on the basis of ineligible claims based on Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand and CAG report. 22. It has also been asserted that NABARD had not proceeded on the basis of report prepared by Managing Director of Dhanbad CCB but had proceeded on the basis of ineligible claims based on Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand and CAG report. Such statement has been made in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit filed by NABARD and the petitioners in their rejoinder has in turn referred to resolution dated 20th July 2015 and has submitted that matter regarding loan waiver/debt relief was considered under agenda no. 7, item no.(iv) which dealt with specific discussion on recovery amount of ADWDRS by NABARD and it is quoted in the rejoinder as under: - …. Deputy Registrar, RCS Jharkhand said that the amount as pointed out by the Finance Department Auditors was lower than that pointed out by the CAG. He advised all three banks to return the amount identified by the Finance Auditors. All the three banks are advised to return the remaining ineligible amount under ADWDRS 2008 to NABARD as communicated to Dhanbad DCCB vide NABARD letter dated July, 2015 and to Ranchi Khunti and Hazaribag DCCB vide NABARD letter dated July, 06, 2015. This court finds that the discussions as per agenda no. 7 has not been annexed along with the minutes of meeting dated 20th July 2015 and the minutes of meeting dated 20th July 2015 as annexed with the rejoinder is a truncated document although portion of the same has been quoted in rejoinder as mentioned above. The letter of NABARD dated July, 06, 2015 as mentioned in the aforesaid quoted portion has also not been filed. However, it is not even the case of the petitioner in the writ record that 100% verification of the claims have been done and the eligible amount under ADWDRS-2008 has been determined by any order. Merely because some figures have been mentioned in the sample audit report no. 05/2013-14 (annexure-12) to be ineligible amount, the same does not mean that the remaining amount is eligible amount. The eligible amount cannot be quantified unless the entire claim is verified. 23. The NABARD has also taken a specific stand that they have proceeded on the basis of Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand and the CAG report and not on the basis of report prepared by Managing Director, Dhanbad Central Co-operative Bank. The eligible amount cannot be quantified unless the entire claim is verified. 23. The NABARD has also taken a specific stand that they have proceeded on the basis of Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand and the CAG report and not on the basis of report prepared by Managing Director, Dhanbad Central Co-operative Bank. Thus, the argument of the petitioners with regards to the irregularities in connection with the report prepared by Managing Director, Dhanbad Central Co-operative Bank does not survive. 24. The fact remains that large scale irregularities were found in connection with the claim under debt relief/loan waiver in terms of the scheme and various clauses of the scheme was said to have been violated and the report of Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand and the CAG also reflects that the verifications is incomplete and there is nothing on record to show that the required verification of the claims continued even after submission of the said report way back as on 12.11.2013 vide audit report no. 05/2013-14 (annexure-12). Thus, the verification with regards to those persons who have already submitted their claim in terms of the ADWDRS-2008 is required to be completed. 25. This Court is of the considered view that loan waiver/debt relief scheme is a special scheme formulated by the Government of India and the waived amount/relief amount in terms of the scheme is to be borne by the Union of India as per ADWDRS-2008 who is not a party in this writ petition. Thus, otherwise also the relief regarding disbursement of any amount under ADWDRS-2008 cannot be granted in absence of the Union of India. 26. This Court is of the view that in order to claim relief under ADWDRS-2008 the scheme was required to be followed in letters and spirit and any violation of the terms and conditions of the scheme with regards to one or the other claimant would call for rejection of such claim. The applications for one time settlement/ loan waiver/debt relief were to be verified/ processed / scrutinized at different levels and in absence of completion of such exercise, this court is not inclined to issue any direction for release of any amount. The applications for one time settlement/ loan waiver/debt relief were to be verified/ processed / scrutinized at different levels and in absence of completion of such exercise, this court is not inclined to issue any direction for release of any amount. The arguments of the petitioners representing 53 PACS (all under Dhanbad CCB) that the benefits under ADWDRS-2008 have been passed on to the beneficiaries and certificates in terms of ADWDRS-2008 have been issued has no bearing in this case. The amount under ADWDRS-2008 has to be released only upon verification regarding entitlement and genuineness of claims in terms of ADWDRS-2008. 27. A series of irregularities have been mentioned in sample audit report in CAG report no. 05/2013-14 (annexure-12) dated 12.11.2013 which go to the root of the entitlement of claims of beneficiaries under 53 PACS represented before this court through the petitioners [all under the Dhanbad CCB] to receive reimbursement on account of debt relief/ debt waiver. The audit report no. 05/2013-14 (annexure-12) itself reflects that verification is not complete. 28. This Court is of the considered view that in the matter debt relief/debt waiver, the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited and this Court is not inclined to issue any direction to disburse any amount without completion of verification of claims. Such direction would be contrary to the ADWDRS 2008-the debt relief/debt waiver scheme. 29. However, the verification of claims made by 53 PACS represented before this Court through the petitioners [all under the Dhanbad CCB] with regards to the genuineness of the beneficiaries and their claims which was initiated at the instance of NABARD has to be taken to a logical end and ultimately only those persons would be entitled for relief who have filed their claims and if such claims are ultimately found to have been filed and processed strictly in terms of ADWDRS 2008. 30. Unless the claims are verified, there is no question of any disbursement. Dhanbad CCB is duty bound to follow the directives of NABARD in the matter of ADWDRS 2008 and in case any amount has been disbursed by Dhanbad CCB to one or the other PACS, the same should also be intimated to NABARD. 30. Unless the claims are verified, there is no question of any disbursement. Dhanbad CCB is duty bound to follow the directives of NABARD in the matter of ADWDRS 2008 and in case any amount has been disbursed by Dhanbad CCB to one or the other PACS, the same should also be intimated to NABARD. Even the 53 PACS represented before this Court through the petitioners [all under the Dhanbad CCB] are under an obligation to disclose the amount, if any, received from Dhanbad CCB in connection with debt relief/debt waiver under ADWDRS 2008. 31. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is for 53 PACS represented before this court through the petitioners [all under the Dhanbad CCB] to get their records verified along with identification of individual beneficiaries of ADWDRS-2008 and upon verification only the question of release of further amount would arise. 32. Under the ADWDRS 2008, PACS come within the definition of financial lending institutions and had an obligation to verify the claims, keep records etc. and if they have acted contrary to ADWDRS 2008, they have to take the responsibility and bear the financial burden arising out of their failure to perform their duties properly. However, the 53 PACS [all under Dhanbad CCB] represented through the petitioners in this case are certainly entitled to one opportunity to satisfy NABARD that they have acted in terms of the ADWDRS 2008 by producing records for verification and identify the genuine claimants whose claims were processed under ADWDRS 2008. They are also required to disclose as to the amount they have received from Dhanbad CCB by way of debt relief/debt waiver under ADWDRS 2008 and the details of the individual claimants to whom they have passed on the benefits of debt waiver/debt relief along with their statement as to whether they have realized any further amount from the claimants contrary to the scheme of ADWDRS 2008 and have doubly benefited, firstly by way of reimbursement from Union of India through NABARD and Dhanbad CCB and secondly directly from the claimants. It is made clear that no fresh claim would be considered and the scrutiny will be confined to the claims which were already made and processed in terms of ADWDRS 2008. 33. It is made clear that no fresh claim would be considered and the scrutiny will be confined to the claims which were already made and processed in terms of ADWDRS 2008. 33. The mode and method of verification of each and every claim is directed to be formulated by the NABARD in consultation with other stake holders such as Union of India /RBI upon production of records by 53 PACS represented before this court through the petitioners [all under the Dhanbad CCB] along with a representation to be filed within a period of one month from today giving details and enclosing relevant documents with regard to each claim. The records be also produced as and when directed by NABARD. 34. The entire verification be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of filing of representation and the result of the verification (claim-wise) be forwarded to the concerned PACS and also to Dhanbad CCB. 35. This writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations/directions.