Authorities cannot challenge loan-settlement benefits after acquiescing in their extension before the court.

The private respondents had borrowed from D.K.80 Begirai Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society and claimed entitlement to loan-settlement benefits under G.O.Ms.No.164 dated 13 December 2023 and G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 24 June 2025.

As the scheme deadline was approaching, they petitioned the writ court. The Society indicated it was willing to settle if they made payment, and the borrowers filed undertakings and calculation memos.

On 24 September 2025, the writ court directed payment of 25% of the outstanding amount with 9% interest within two weeks, and the balance within six weeks.

The authorities did not appeal immediately. When the borrowers later sought an extension of time, the Deputy Registrar first filed a calculation based on a surcharge order, then filed a revised calculation applying the G.O.s. The authorities appealed only as the borrowers were preparing to make final payment, contending that they were ineligible for the scheme.

Whether the authorities could challenge the writ court’s settlement directions on the ground that the borrowers were ineligible for the G.O. benefits after having participated in the proceedings and indicated willingness to extend those benefits

Whether the writ court’s orders directing payment under the settlement arrangement disclosed an error or infirmity warranting appellate interference

The court considered G.O.Ms.No.164 dated 13 December 2023 and G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 24 June 2025, which provided loan-settlement benefits to specified categories of borrowers.

The court’s reasoning was that an authority’s appeal was unsustainable where, having had the opportunity to object to eligibility before the writ court, it remained silent, participated in the settlement process, and proceeded to prepare calculations extending the G.O. benefits.

The authorities had an opportunity to raise the borrowers’ alleged ineligibility when the writ petitions were first heard, but did not do so. Instead, the Society expressed willingness to settle if payment was made, and the authorities participated while the borrowers gave undertakings and the writ court made its orders.

The Deputy Registrar later filed a revised calculation applying the G.O. benefits. In those circumstances, the court held that the authorities could not belatedly challenge the directions on eligibility grounds after allowing the settlement process to proceed.

The court did not independently determine whether the borrowers fell within the categories eligible under the G.O.s.

The private respondents were permitted to pay according to the Deputy Registrar’s revised calculation within two weeks. No order was made as to costs, and the interim applications were dismissed.