JUDGMENT : These Writ Petitions, except W.P.(C.)No.32693 of 2014, are filed by Primary Co-operative Societies, which are engaged in the business of providing credit to its members by way of loans etc. Writ Petition No.32693 of 2014 has been filed by the erstwhile Kollam District Co-operative Bank Ltd., which is now merged with the Kerala State Co-operative Bank. The petitioners’ challenge, Circular Nos.1/2011 dated 03.01.2011 and 12/2011 dated 01.02.2011, issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. These Circulars have been published on the basis of stipulations contained in G.O. (P)No.91/2010 dated 06.12.2010 issued by the Fisheries Department and relate to the grant of certain benefits/ concession/waiver, in respect of loans availed by persons belonging to the fishermen community and whose principle avocation is fishing, as defined under Section 2(xii) of the Kerala Fishermen Debt Relief Commission Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Debt Relief Act’). The petitioners inter-alia contend that the Government Order dated 06.12.2010 and Circular Nos.1/2011 and 12/2011 dated 03.01.2011 and 01.02.2011 respectively, are illegal and ultra vires the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1969 Act’) and the Debt Relief Act. It is submitted that the implementation of those Circulars, except to the extent that any amount has been sanctioned by the Government to the individual Societies for waiving any particular debt, would cause immense financial stress to the Co-operative Societies in question. It is submitted that, neither the Government of Kerala nor the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has the statutory power to issue such directions, in respect of loans advanced by the petitioner Societies to individual fishermen. 2. Learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand seek to sustain the Government Order and the Circulars referred to above by referring to the provisions of Section 66A and 74F of the 1969 Act. 3. I have heard, Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, Sri. T.R. Harikumar, Sri. P. Gopal, Sri. P.P. Jacob, Sri. P.R. Shaji and Sri. M.M. Monaye, on behalf of the petitioners in these cases. I have also heard the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, who appeared on behalf of the State, Sri. T.G. Sunil, learned Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Fishermen Debt Relief Commission, Sri. Mohan C. Menon, Sri. T.R. Harikumar, Sri. P. Gopal, Sri. P.P. Jacob, Sri. P.R. Shaji and Sri. M.M. Monaye, on behalf of the petitioners in these cases. I have also heard the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, who appeared on behalf of the State, Sri. T.G. Sunil, learned Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Fishermen Debt Relief Commission, Sri. Mohan C. Menon, Sri. Binu Mathew and Smt. Nisha George, learned Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd. and the Kerala State Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. (apex societies). 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the Counsel appearing for the Apex Societies, who support the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, would contend that the primary Societies are re-financed by the respective Apex Societies and, in every sense, act only as an intermediary in the sanction of loans to individual members of the respective primary Societies. It is submitted that the primary Societies are, therefore, bound to repay the amount sanctioned as a loan by the respective Apex Societies after retaining the margin on the interest permitted. It is submitted that if the individual Societies are required, in terms of the impugned Government Order/Circulars, to waive interest on loans granted to its members, these Societies will suffer irreparable financial loss and may even result in the collapse of the Societies, as they have no individual source of finance. It is submitted that, while on the recommendations of the Fishermen Debt Relief Commission, any waiver granted by the Government can be extended to the borrowers to the extent that the Societies are supported by the actual grant of amounts by the Government; no further relief can be granted to individual borrowers, without budgetary support from the Government. In other words, it is their contention that unless the amount waiver is granted to the Societies by the Government on the recommendations of the Debt Recovery Commission, or otherwise, no waiver can be granted to the individual borrowers. It is also submitted that no loan account can be closed, and no documents of title of properties mortgaged for the purpose of securing the repayment of the loans can be returned based on the impugned Government Order/Circulars issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. It is also submitted that no loan account can be closed, and no documents of title of properties mortgaged for the purpose of securing the repayment of the loans can be returned based on the impugned Government Order/Circulars issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. It is submitted that the Fishermen Debt Relief Commission has no authority to direct the individual Co-operative Societies to return the documents of title after closing the loans of individual members. Learned Counsel has also referred to the provisions of the Debt Relief Act to contend that the determination of any waiver by the Commission can be only on the basis of individual applications by fishermen, as defined in the said Act, and on the satisfaction that the conditions precedent for grant of relief including a finding of fact that the loan was availed for the purpose of augmenting the income of fishermen, is determined by the Commission on an individual basis. 5. It is submitted that there is no provision in the Debt Relief Act, which would authorise the Commission to recommend to the Government to grant an omnibus waiver of principal amount/interest/penal interest in respect of loans availed by members (who may be fishermen) from the Co-operative Societies in question. It is submitted that the Circulars issued cannot be deemed to be Circulars issued under Section 66A of the 1969 Act, and the Government Order as an order in terms of the provisions contained in Section 74F of the said Act. It is submitted that the powers under Section 66A and Section 74F of the 1969 Act also do not authorise the Government or the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to require waiver or write off of loans without providing financial assistance, equivalent to the amount of waiver/write off directed to be given as any other interpretation could mean that the Government/Registrar of Co-operative Society could direct waiver/ write off of loans leading to financial ruin, as far as individual Co-operative Societies are concerned. It is submitted that the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Shanmukha Sundaram Pillai S. v. Meenachil Rubber Marketing and Processing Co-operative Society Ltd. No.K118 and Others [ 2022 (3) KHC 121 ] is authority for the proposition that powers under Section 66A of the 1969 Act, could not be issued for the purposes of issuing Circulars in the nature of the impugned Circulars. 6. 6. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the decision of the Full Bench in Shanmukha Sundaram Pillai (Supra) only deals with the issue as to whether the power under Section 66A of the 1969 Act could be invoked for the purposes of directing the release of Fixed Deposit etc. in the case of individuals. It is submitted that the decision of the Full Bench is not authority for the proposition that the power under Section 66A of the 1969 Act could not be invoked to issue the Circulars impugned in these Writ Petitions. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Fishermen Debt Relief Commission would submit that the Circulars in question have been already upheld by this Court, through judgment dated 20.09.2017 in W.P. (C.)No.19542 of 2011. It is submitted that this Court, while upholding the validity of the Circulars, has relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Abdurahiman Nagar Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala [ 2014 (1) KLT 664 ]. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1488 of 2013 which has delienated the powers of the Debt Relief Commission under the Debt Relief Act. 8. I have considered the contentions raised. At the outset, it must be noticed that the impugned Circulars, namely Circular Nos.1/2011 and 12/2011 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, were so issued on the basis of stipulations in G.O(P)No.91/2010 dated 06.12.2010. A reading of G.O(P)No.91/2010 dated 06.12.2010 would indicate that the Government Order was issued on the basis of the recommendations of the Debt Relief Commission constituted under the Debt Relief Act, 2008. It is therefore, necessary to analyse the powers of the Debt Relief Commission under the Debt Relief Act. The Debt Relief Act received the assent of the Governor on 09.04.2008. It is therefore, necessary to analyse the powers of the Debt Relief Commission under the Debt Relief Act. The Debt Relief Act received the assent of the Governor on 09.04.2008. The word ‘debt’ for the purposes of the Debt Relief Act, 2008 defined in Section 2(v) of the said Act, as under; “‘debt’ means any liability, in money, whether secured or unsecured, due from a fisherman whether payable under a contract or under a decree or order of any Court or Tribunal or otherwise and includes,- (a) any sum payable to – (i) an institutional creditor, (ii) a co-operative society, (iii) a fishermen society, (b) any sum received from a creditor by a fisherman, (c) any type of loan taken by a fisherman from financial institutions and specified by the Government notification, but does not include any loan amount taken by a fisherman for commercial purposes or luxury other than fishing purposes to augment his income and the amount payable to Central of State Government or other State Governments or Governments of Union Territories and the amount due to Local Self Government Institutions, Statutory Bodies, Centre or State Public Sector Undertakings and other Institutions as may be specified by the Government by notifications” ‘Financial Institution’ for the purposes of the Debt Relief Act, 2008, means a financial institution constituted by any Central Act or State Act for the time being in force and owned and controlled by the Government. The word ‘fishing’ is defined in Section 2(xii) of the Debt Relief Act, as under; “(xii) ‘fishing’ means,- (a) fishing by traditional method or buy using traditional or mechanised vessels, (b) sale of sea water/ fresh water/ saline water fish products by the family members of a fisherman by travelling to various places by two wheelers or by head load, but does not include fishing by using mechanized boat, for which licence has to be taken under Section 6 of the Kerala Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1980, (10 of 1981) and as may be specified by the Government by notification. The term ‘fisherman’ has been defined in Section 2(xiii) of the Debt Relief Act, as under; ‘'(xi) ‘fisherman’ means, a person who accept fishing as the foremost means of livelihood and whose annual income does not exceed the annual income limit fixed by the Government from time to time and it includes the widow of a fisherman. The term ‘fisherman’ has been defined in Section 2(xiii) of the Debt Relief Act, as under; ‘'(xi) ‘fisherman’ means, a person who accept fishing as the foremost means of livelihood and whose annual income does not exceed the annual income limit fixed by the Government from time to time and it includes the widow of a fisherman. Section 5 of the Debt Relief Act sets out and delineates the powers and duties of the Debt Relief Commission. Section 5(1)(a) of the Debt Relief Act deals with the power of the Commission to declare any districts or district or fishermen zone forming part thereof as a disaster-affected area for a proposed period. Section 5(1)(b) of the Debt Relief Act enables the Debts Relief Commission to determine, in the case of creditors other than institutional creditors, a fair rate of interest and an appropriate level of debt, as the Commission may consider just and reasonable to be payable by the indebted fishermen in the disaster-affected area. The provisions of Sections 5(1)(c), 5(1)(d) and 5(1)(e) of the Debt Relief Act indicate that the Debt Relief Commission may undertake conciliation for settlement of individual disputes between indebted fishermen and creditors other than institutional creditors, adjudicate disputes between indebted fishermen in a disaster-affected area and the creditors, other than institutional creditors, and to pass awards which shall be binding on both parties, to enter into negotiations with creditors for waiving loan, for granting interest rate relief, for rescheduling the loan or for providing loan moratorium to the fishermen in the disaster-affected areas. Section 5(1)(f) of the Debt Relief Act empowers the Debts Relief Commission to recommend to the Government the extent and the manner in which debt relief can be granted to the fishermen. Section 5(1)(g) of the Debt Relief Act empowers the Debts Relief Commission to recommend to the Government or Government agencies to take over the whole or part of the debt and exonerate the fishermen from the consequences of the debt. Section 5(1)(h) of the Debt Relief Act empowers the Debts Relief Commission to recommend to the Government to do such acts as may be necessary to ensure that future debt reliefs of fishermen are met through such agencies, as may be prescribed. Section 5(1)(h) of the Debt Relief Act empowers the Debts Relief Commission to recommend to the Government to do such acts as may be necessary to ensure that future debt reliefs of fishermen are met through such agencies, as may be prescribed. Subsection (2) of Section 5 of the Debt Relief Act empowers the Debts Relief Commission to issue orders keeping in abeyance the repayments of all debts of fishermen in disaster-affected areas to creditors other than to institutional creditors after considering the factors set out in that provision and for a period not exceeding one year. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Debt Relief Act makes it clear that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions in the Debt Relief Act, the limit of debt relief granted to a fisherman by way of waiver of the principal interest and penal interest, shall not exceed the limit as may be fixed by the Government from time to time. Subsection (4) of Section 5 of the Debt Relief Act indicates that an award passed by the Debt Relief Commission under clause (d) of sub-section (1) shall be final and shall not be called into question in any court and subsection (5) of Section 5 of the Debt Relief Act indicates that the awards of the Commission as per clause (d) of sub-section (1) may be executed as a decree of the Civil Court under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 6 of the Debt Relief Act deals with the manner in which an area can be determined to be a disaster-affected area. The provisions of Sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Debt Relief Act delineate the powers of the Debt Relief Commission with respect to loans taken by fishermen of a disaster-affected area. 9. It is clear from a reading of the provisions of the Debt Relief Act, referred to above, that the Commission can issue general directions under Sections 9 to 12 of the Debt Relief Act and Sections 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(b) of the said Act, only in respect of a disaster-affected area. The other powers of the Commission regarding waiver of a part of the loan, interest or penal interest cannot be an omnibus recommendation. The other powers of the Commission regarding waiver of a part of the loan, interest or penal interest cannot be an omnibus recommendation. They can only pertain to individual loans on the basis of the determination of individual facts pertaining to individual borrowers who fall within the definition of fisherman as defined in Section 2(xiii) of the Debt Relief Act. Again, it must be noted that there is no power vested in the Debt Relief Commission to direct or to recommend to the Government that loan waiver must be granted by individual Societies or financial institutions or creditors without ensuring the provision of financial support to the extent of waiver that is directed or recommended to be provided. The provisions of Section 66A of the 1969 Act no doubt empower the Registrar to give directions for implementing Government policies for the benefit of the members and the general public. However, as held by the Full Bench of this Court in Shanmukha Sundaram Pillai S. (Supra), the power under Section 66A of the 1969 Act is to be sparingly used and shall not be used in individual matters or in contractual matters between a Society and its Members or in matters relating to its business. Though the learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel appearing for the Debts Relief Commission have pointed out that the impugned Circulars are issued on the basis of the Government Order (G.O(P) No.91/2010 dated 06.12.2010), and therefore, the Circulars can be deemed to be issued for the furtherance of a Government policy as reflected in the Government Order, I am unable to hold that the power under Section 74F of the 1969 Act would extend to a situation like this, where the primary Societies are required to waive off loans/interest/penal interest without financial support from the Government and beyond the extent of support extended by the Government for the purposes of such waiver. Any other interpretation on the power of the Government under Section 74F of the 1969 Act would result in a situation where the financial health of Co-operative Societies engaged in the provision of credit to individual members would be seriously affected. Obviously, this is not the purpose and intent of Section 74F of the 1969 Act. 10. Any other interpretation on the power of the Government under Section 74F of the 1969 Act would result in a situation where the financial health of Co-operative Societies engaged in the provision of credit to individual members would be seriously affected. Obviously, this is not the purpose and intent of Section 74F of the 1969 Act. 10. Coming to the judgment of this Court in W.P(C)No.29542 of 2011, where this Court had repelled the challenge to Circulars, which are impugned in these Writ Petitions, I must note that this Court had followed the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Abdurahiman Nagar Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Supra). That case was a case where the Division Bench of this Court was concerned with Circular No.41/2011, through which the Government had introduced a one-time settlement scheme known as ‘Aswas2011’.This Court in Abdurahiman Nagar Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Supra), took the view that such a Circular was justified in terms of the provisions contained in the 1969 Act. It must be noticed that the judgment of the Division Bench in Abdurahiman Nagar Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Supra), was considered by the Full Bench and it concluded that the power under Section 66A of the 1969 Act, does not extend to purely contractual matters between the Society or its members and in matters relating to its business. It was held:- “xxxx xxxx xxxx We hold that the general directions and guidelines that can be issued by the Registrar under Section 66A can only be for the purpose of implementing or enforcing the purpose of the Act or for implementing the policies of the Government for the benefit of the Members of the Society and general public and not in individual cases or in purely contractual matters between the Society or its Members. Only such orders issued by the Registrar under Section 66A which satisfy the above test would be valid.” In the light of the categoric finding of the Full Bench and in the light of the discussions above, I am unable to hold that the impugned Circulars can be justified in terms of the provisions contained in Section 66A of the 1969 Act. I am also unable to hold that G.O(P)No.91/2010 dated 06.12.2010 is sustainable in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 74F of the 1969 Act. I am also unable to hold that G.O(P)No.91/2010 dated 06.12.2010 is sustainable in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 74F of the 1969 Act. In the light of the aforesaid findings, these Writ Petitions are allowed in the following manner; (i) Circular Nos.1/2011 dated 03.01.2011 and 2/2011 dated 01.02.2011, issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in the matter of write-off of loans, interest, penal interest etc., in respect of loans availed by fishermen from Co-operative Banks/Societies will stand quashed. It is declared that those Circulars are ultravires the provisions contained of the 1969 Act; (ii) G.O.(P)No.91/2010 dated 06.12.2010 issued by the Government of Kerala in the Fisheries Department on the basis of which Circular Nos.1/2011 and 12/2011 were issued will stand quashed. It is declared that in the exercise of the power under Section 74F of the 1969 Act, the Government of Kerala cannot, without providing support to the extent of waiver, direct the write-off of loans, interest or penal interest in respect of loans availed by individual borrowers from Co-operative Banks/Societies; (iii) In view of the definition of institutional creditors in the Debt Relief Act, it is held that orders issued by the Debt Relief Commission under the provisions of the Debt Relief Act, 2008, cannot extend to institutional creditors as defined in Section 2(xvi) of the Debt Relief Act; The directions contained in this judgment will not be construed as affecting any waiver granted in respect of loans availed by fishermen on the basis of recommendations of the Fisherman Debt Relief Commission and to the extent that, such waiver is supported by financial aid to the individual Societies by the Government of Kerala. In other words, the individual Banks/Societies shall extend to the fishermen concerned the benefit extended by the Government of Kerala by providing financial assistance as recommended by the Fisherman Debt Relief Commission. In other words, the individual Banks/Societies shall extend to the fishermen concerned the benefit extended by the Government of Kerala by providing financial assistance as recommended by the Fisherman Debt Relief Commission. It is also held that nothing in this judgment shall be construed as affecting the power of the Fisherman Debt Relief Commission to examine individual cases on their merits and to consider the cases of individual fishermen, who may approach the Debt Relief Commission for relief, in terms of the provisions contained in Section 5 of the Debts Relief Act, 2008, and also having regard to the powers of the Commission under Sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Debt Relief Act, in respect of disaster-affected areas, which have been so declared in terms of the provisions contained in that Act. It is also made clear that if any loan has already been closed by granting the benefit contemplated by the impugned Circulars and the loan documents have been returned to the individual borrowers, such loans shall not be reopened by the individual Co-operative Banks/Societies, on account of this judgment.