Sibaram Das v. Nayagarh Dist.Centr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P(C). No.20809 of 2013 Sibaram Das ....

Petitioner None -versusNayagarh District Central Cooperative Bank & Others ....

Opposite Parties Mr. B. Pr. Das, Advocate for Opp.Party Nos. 1 &2

CORAM:

JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN ORDER (Oral) 20.05.2022 Order No.

10.

1.

This matter is taken up by virtual/physical mode. 2.

The grievance of the Petitioner-farmer, in this present petition is that having availed credit facility through Kissan Credit Card and Gold Card from Champatipur Co-operative Society, being a Member, though he was entitled to the scheme of waiver on account of crop loss brought out by the Government in the year 2010-11, he was not extended said benefit. He attributed such deficiency to the Champatipur Service Cooperative Society which failed to maintain passbook of loan account regularly. 3.

Rebutting such allegation, the Opposite Party No. 2, i.e., Secretary, Champatipur Service Cooperative Society filed counter affidavit through Mr. B.Pr. Das, Advocate pursuant to notice issued vide order dated 23rd September, 2013 and submitted that the Petitioner was issued notice to clear up loan not on account of crop, but on account of loan in respect of 'gur' making unit and diesel pump set. The Opposite Party in the counter-affidavit at

// 2 // paragraph 7 categorically stated that "The Petitioner was not entitled to any alleged loan waiver for crop loss in 2010-11". It is also mentioned that Gold Card is applicable to crop loan only, but not to any other loans availed by the Petitioner. Since the present subject-matter does not relate to crop loan of the Petitioner, he is not entitled to such benefit of waiver.

4.

None appears for the Petitioner today when the matter is taken up for hearing.

5.

Heard Mr. B.Pr. Das, counsel for the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2.

6.

It appears the Petitioner has lost interest in pursuing his matter. In view of categorical submission made by the counsel for the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2, and by efflux of time the writ petition has been rendered infructuous.

7.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. (Jaswant Singh) Judge (M.S. Raman) Judge Aks May 20, 2022 Cuttack