Gujarat High Court
Bharatkumar vs Union on 12 May, 2010
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3154/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3154 of 2010
=========================================
BHARATKUMAR
JETHALAL KEVADIA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA & 5 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
BM MANGUKIYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MS BELA A PRAJAPATI for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR RM
CHHAYA for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR ANSHIN H DESAI for Respondent(s)
: 1,
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3.
DS AFF.NOT
FILED (R) for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3.
MS ARCHANA U AMIN for
Respondent(s) : 4,
MR YN RAVANI for Respondent(s) : 5,
MS ML
SHAH for Respondent(s) : 6,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 12/05/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Petitioner has challenged a communication dated 7th July 2009 issued by respondent No.5. By the said communication, it was conveyed to the petitioner that his request for loan waiver as per the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 (Scheme of 2008, for short) cannot be accepted since the loan obtained for the purpose of construction of farm-house is not covered under the scheme.
The case of the petitioner appears to be that he is a small and marginal farmer and he had obtained loan from respondent No.5 Bank for the purpose of construction of cattle-shed and for storing grass and other agricultural equipments. According to the petitioner, loan obtained for the said purpose would be covered under the Scheme of 2008.
Respondents have, however, opposed the petition by filing affidavits. In particular, in the affidavit filed by respondent No.4 dated 10th May 2010, it is stated, inter alia, that the petitioner had obtained loan from respondent No.5 Bank to construct a farmhouse and the Scheme 2008 does not cover this purpose. NABARD which is the nodal agency for implementation of the scheme, therefore, found that the request of the petitioner for loan waiver cannot be accepted. It is further pointed out that the clarification issued by the Government provides that the eligible amount will be calculated after excluding the amounts of loan advanced for construction of shed, farm house, fencing etc. which are not included under the Scheme . In addition to the said averments made in the affidavit in reply of respondent No.4, our attention was also drawn to the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.5 dated 20th April 2010, along with which a copy of the Scheme of 2008 has been annexed. Clause (xii) thereof specifically provides that loans for construction of storage facilities are not covered under the Scheme. Loans for purchase of land, construction of farmhouses, sheds, fencing, etc. are also not covered under the Scheme. In clause
(xiii), it is further provided that only direct agricultural loans to farmers are covered under the Scheme. Loans to farmers for purposes other than agriculture and loans for agricultural purposes to companies or other legal persons like registered societies, trusts, partnerships, etc. are not covered under the Scheme.
From the documents on record, it can be clearly seen that the purpose for which the petitioner had obtained loan was not covered under the Scheme of 2008. Admittedly, the petitioner had obtained loan for the purpose of construction of a farmhouse. As per the his own admission, the loan was for the purpose of construction of cattle shed for storing grass and other agricultural equipments related to cattle breeding activities. These activities are not covered under the Scheme for loan waiver. Clauses (xii) and (xiii) of the Scheme are sufficiently clear. Additionally, the clarification of the Government also, as noted herein above, further clarifies this position. When the case of the petitioner is not covered under the Scheme of 2008 for loan waiver, no direction for such waiver can be given. The petition is therefore dismissed.
(S.J.Mukhopadhaya, C.J.) (Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn) Top