Banks Must Decide Loan-Waiver Eligibility on Separate Representations Under the Applicable Scheme.

The petitioner society sought waiver of loans taken by groups of farmers from respondents 3–8, asserting that the loans qualified for relief under the State’s 2008 Krishi Rin Mafi Aur Rahat Yojna.

Earlier proceedings included a 2019 writ petition in which the High Court directed the Bank to consider the petitioner’s entitlement under the applicable 2008 scheme, while expressly leaving the merits open.

The petitioner later alleged that the Bank had not decided the entitlement and had issued recovery notices.

In the present petition, it sought consideration and waiver of the loans, restraint on recovery, and return of amounts already recovered.

The Bank disputed eligibility, contending that the loans were not agricultural loans.

Whether the petitioner and associated groups should be permitted to submit separate representations regarding their eligibility for loan waiver under the 2008 scheme, and whether the Bank should be directed to decide them.

Whether the Court should determine the petitioner’s substantive entitlement to waiver or grant the requested recovery-related relief in this proceeding.

Article 226 of the Constitution provides the High Court’s jurisdiction to issue appropriate writs and directions.

The 2019 order required the Bank to consider the petitioner’s entitlement under the applicable 2008 scheme but did not determine that entitlement; the present Court likewise left the merits undecided.

The Court applied no separate statutory eligibility rule or precedent to resolve whether these loans qualified for waiver.

The Court noted that the earlier direction to decide entitlement had not resulted in a decision.

It considered that the petitioner and associated groups appeared not to have submitted separate representations to the Bank, providing a basis to allow them to do so and require a decision.

Because eligibility depended on the nature and circumstances of the loans, and the Bank disputed that they were agricultural loans, the Court left the merits to the Bank rather than deciding waiver, recovery, or repayment claims itself.

The petitioner society and associated groups were permitted to submit separate representations within 30 days, and the Bank was directed to decide them—particularly the question of entitlement—preferably within a further 90 days.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits.

The interim order dated 25 August 2021 was continued for 90 days.