← Library
Madras High CourtWP/12522/2013disposed of

E.Siddheswaran v. The Manager

2020-02-17Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17.02.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE W.P.No.12522 of 2013 E.Siddheswaran ...

Petitioner Vs.

1.The Manager, State Bank of India Mettur Main Road, Omalur.

2.The Grievance Redressal Officer, The Assistant General Manager, Rural Development, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Coimbatore -641 018.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records of the 2nd respondent in ADWDR 2008/No.157 and quash the order passed therein dated 21.08.2008 and direct the respondents to grant the relief of entire Debt waiver to the petitioner in accordance with the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. For Petitioner : Mr.A.P.Srinivas For Respondents : Mr.K.Chandrasekaran

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.08.2008 passed by the second respondent in ADWDR 2008/No.157 rejecting the waiver application submitted by the petitioner and seeking waiver of loan as per the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008.

2.Heard Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3.As seen from the impugned order dated 21.08.2008, the second respondent has rejected the waiver application by a non speaking order. Except for stating that the petitioner is not eligible for the loan waiver scheme, no reasons have been given for the said rejection. This Court is of the considered https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

view that the second respondent ought to have given reasons as to why the loan waiver application is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner had to close the loan account since there was a threat to auction the petitioner's jewels by the respondents. However, he submits that the petitioner is entitled for refund of the loan amount paid by the petitioner in view of the aforesaid Debt Waiver scheme. 4.

In view of the non speaking order passed by the second respondent, this Court quashes the same and remands the matter back to the second respondent for fresh consideration and the second respondent shall pass final orders after hearing the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in the event of the second respondent coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for loan waiver under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, the amount paid by the petitioner towards discharge of the loan shall be refunded to the petitioner.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sms To 1.The Manager, State Bank of India Mettur Main Road,Omalur.

2.The Grievance Redressal Officer, The Assistant General Manager, Rural Development,State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Coimbatore -641 018.

+1cc to Mr.R.Vignewhwaran , Advocate SR.No. 14099 +1cc to Mr.A.P.Srinivas , Advocate SR.No. 13825 W.P.No.12522 of 2013 sv A.SK(23/03/2020) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/