Bombay High Court
Vitthal Ganpatrao Deshmukh And Ors vs The Union Of India And Ors on 31 March, 2016
Author: S.V.Gangapurwala
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, K.K. Sonawane
{1}
5764.08 wp.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5764 OF 2008
1] Vitthal Ganpatrao Deshmukh,
Age 57 years, Occ. Agril.
2] Smt. Laxmibai Sudhakar Mahale,
Age 65 years, Occ. Agril.
3] Sau. Tarabai Raoba Yewale
Age 50 years, Occ. Agril.
4] Raoba Punjaji Yewale
Age 53 years, Occ. Agril.
5] Dinkar Murlidhar Kawade,
Age 45 years, Occ. Agril.
6] Sau. Vimal Ramnath Abhang
Age 43 years, Occ. Agril.
7] Bhaiyasaheb Baburao Kawade
Age 58 years, Occ. Agril.
8] Sanjay Sadashiv Kawade
Age 40 years, Occ. Agril.
9] Shaikha Dadamiya Balambhai Maniyar
Age 85 years, Occ. Agril.
All R/o. Dhandarphal Bk., Tal. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
.. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1] Union of India
Through Finance Ministry,
New Delhi (Copy to be served on
Asstt. Solicitor General of India,
at Aurangabad)
2] The State of Maharashtra
through its Chief Secretary,
Co-Operation and Textile Department,
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 11:16:14 :::
{2}
5764.08 wp.odt
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3] The District Level Coordination Committee,
Ahmednagar, through its President,
Collector, Ahmednagar.
4] The District Deputy Registrar,
Cooperative Societies , Ahmednagar,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
[ Respondent. Nos. 2 to 4 to be served through
Govt. Pleader,High Court of Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad.]
5] Kuntaleshwar Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari
Patsanstha Ltd., Dhandarphal BK.
Taluka Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar,
through its Manager.
6] Rameshwar Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari
Patsanstha Ltd., Dhandarphal BK.
Tal. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar.
Through its Manager.
... RESPONDENTS.
Shri P.B. Shirsath, Advocate for petitioners
Shri A.V. Deshmukh, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Shri D.D. Pokharkar, Adocate for respondent Nos. 5 and 6
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATE : 31ST MARCH, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.] :-
1] Heard. Petitioners claim benefits of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 ( Hereinafter referred to as, "the said Scheme" for sake of brevity). Mr. Shirsath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that barring petitioner No.1, all the other petitioners have borrowed the loan to the extent of 50,000/- and none of the petitioners from petitioner Nos. 2 to 9 have borrowed loan more than Rs. 50,000/-. They are all small farmers holding land below 5 acres. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the said loan would come under the ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 11:16:14 ::: {3} 5764.08 wp.odt purview of the definition of "Short Term Production Loan " and "investment loan" as per said scheme. The purpose for which the loans are taken are for agricultural operations only and as such all the petitioners are squarely covered by the said scheme. Definitions are laid down under Clauses 3.2 and 3.3. of the said Scheme. Learned counsel submits that the said scheme is a Central Scheme meant to assist the farmers who are reeling under drought situation. The Central Government realized that it is difficult for the farmers to repay the loan amount and hence, it came out with the said scheme. As such, the benefits of the said scheme has to be made applicable to the agriculturists. All these petitioners are agriculturists. The loans of all these petitioners are disbursed upto March, 2007 and their accounts are classified as Non-Performing Assets. As such, the loans of all these petitioners come within the ambit and purview of said scheme. According to the learned counsel, the said scheme being a Central Scheme, the State government does not have any right to amend the said scheme and put forth some other conditions. Same would be beyond the purview of their authority.
2] Mr. Pokharkar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 submits that the purpose of the loan of these petitioners is either construction of Cattle Shed or Onion Shed. Same does not come within the ambit of "Short Term Production Loan" or "Investment Loan" as defined under the said Scheme. It would be beyond the scope of "direct agricultural loan" as contemplated in the same. The learned counsel submits that said scheme is applicable only if the loan advance is for a period of 18 months, that would fall within the definition of "Short Term Advances". In the present case, petitioners were advanced loan to be repaid in two years. As such, on this count also, the scheme is not applicable.
3] We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that the said scheme is meant to ameliorate the economic ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 11:16:14 ::: {4} 5764.08 wp.odt conditions of the agriculturists . The Central Government has taken into consideration the falling economic condition of the agriculturists and had introduced the said scheme.
4] The said scheme will have to be applied in consonance with the guidelines and the terms as laid down under the said scheme. The said scheme is self operative and self explanatory. In the present case, even if we consider that the petitioners are small farmers having holding of less than 5 acres of the land and the loan obtained by petitioners nos. 2 to 9 is not more than Rs. 50,000/-, still, the factor which will have to be considered is, whether the loan can be said to be "Direct Agricultural loan" meant for "short term production loan" and "Investment loan". Clause 3.3. lays down the meaning of "Investment Loan" which read thus :-
"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."
Clause 3.2 defines the term "Short Term Production Loan", which read thus :-
"3.2 "Short Term Production Loan" means Short Term Production Loans and Investment Loans provided directly to farmers for agricultural purposes. This would also include such ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 11:16:14 ::: {5} 5764.08 wp.odt loans provided directly to groups of individual farmers (for example Self Help Groups and Joint Liability Groups) provided banks maintain disaggregated data of the loan extended to each farmer belonging to that group."
5] Considering the meaning of the term "Short Term Production Loan" and "Investment Loan" as detailed under the said scheme, it is manifest that the same should be related directly to the production or a debt relating to capital intestment, aimed to increase the output from the land, such as deepening of wells, sinking of new wells, installing of pump sets, purchase of tractor/pair of bullocks, land development and term loan for traditional and non-traditional plantations and horticulture, meaning thereby, the loan shall be meant for the purpose by which the production and yield would be increased. So also, it may be for allied agricultural activities such as dairy, poultry farming, goatery, sheep rearing, fisheries, etc. 6] In the present case, as submitted by the respondent bank, the purpose of the loan was either for erection of Onion Sheds or Cattle Sheds.
The said loans certainly would not come within the meaning and purview of the definition of "Short term Production Loan" and "Investment Loan". The petitioner Nos. 1,3,4,6,7,8 and 9 have already repaid the loans. Be that as it may, considering the conspectus of the aforesaid discussion & as we have arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled for the benefit of the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme 2008 on the ground that the purpose of loan would not come within the ambit and purview of "Short term Production loan" and "Investment Loans", we are not inclined to consider the other facets of the matter. In the light of that, the writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.
[K.K. SONAWANE,J.] [S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J]
grt/-
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 11:16:14 :::