- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47010 WP No. 22140 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 22140 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: SRI JAYARAMU K S S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT 2ND CROSS, MADDURU TOWN, K H NAGARA MADDUR, MANDYA DISTRICT-571428. (SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAY SWAMY .C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. MULTIPURPOSE PRIMARY RURAL AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY REPRESENTED BY IT'S CHIEF SECRETARY BESAGARAHALLI, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571428 REGISTER UNDER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 SRI. K. ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DTD 17.10.2023 I.E. R.NO.A.R.M.D.166/1949-50 AS ANNX-F ISSUED BY THE R3 TO THE PETITIONER. AND ETC., Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47010 WP No. 22140 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of the writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the letter dated 17.10.2023 issued by respondent No.2 produced as per Annexure - 'F'. 2. Heard Sri. Vinay Swamy C., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Yogesh D Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri. K.Ananda, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner had borrowed a loan from respondent No.2 - Society, by executing loan documents and mortgaging his properties bearing Sy.No.257, 279/4, 142/7, 187/8 and 198/6 situated at Maddur measuring 1 acre 3 guntas. Crop loan of Rs.60,000/- was released in favour of the petitioner during 2018. The crop grown by the petitioner had failed. The petitioner is declared as small farmer, who obtained loan, and this loan was waived off by issuing Notification as per - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47010 WP No. 22140 of 2025 Annexure - 'A'. Accordingly, respondent No.2 has issued letter as per Annexure - 'B', asking the petitioner to raise the claim for waiver of loan along with interest to an extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. Pursuant to the same, the loan raised by the petitioner was waived off by issuing the statement of loan account as per Annexure - 'C', showing the balance of loan as nil. 4. Now it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that, even though the loan was waived off, the balance in the account was shown as nil as per Annexure - C, respondent No.2 is neither discharging the mortgage earlier made by the petitioner, nor sanctioning the fresh loan. On the other hand, has issued the letter dated 17.10.2023, giving lame excuse that the amount under the Loan Waivers Scheme is not credited by the Government and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for fresh loan, and sought for providing security by furnishing any other property that may be standing in the name of the petitioner. 5. When admittedly, the Government has waived off the loan that was obtained by the petitioner considering him as small holder as per the proceedings Annexure - 'B', the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47010 WP No. 22140 of 2025 petitioner was called upon to take the benefit of such scheme, and pursuant to the same, Annexure- 'C' the statement of loan account issued showing the loan account of the petitioner as nil, I do not find any justification for respondent No.2 for not releasing the mortgaged property of the petitioner, and refusing to lend fresh loan. 6. The Governments are taking credit in announcing the loan waiver schemes as their achievement in achieving social justice and in protecting small farmers. But it is a classic case where inspite of giving such benefit to the farmers as per Annexure - 'A', till date, the mortgage properties were not released. This is inspite of the account statement as per Annexure -'C', showing the balance in the loan account nil. 7. Under such circumstances, the contention taken by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that, the Government has not yet credited the amount to the account of respondent No.2 cannot be accepted. If at all, respondent No.2 has not received the said amount to the loan account of the petitioner, there was no occasion for respondent No.2 to show the balance in the loan account as nil. If at all, said amount is claimed by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47010 WP No. 22140 of 2025 respondent No.2, it is between respondent No.2 and the State for which, the petitioner cannot be made as scapegoat. 8. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that by mistake, balance in the loan account of the petitioner is shown as nil as per Annexure - 'C' cannot be accepted. However, if by mistake the same is made, the employee, who is responsible for committing such mistake can be held responsible for respondent No.2 to recover the said amount. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed reliance on the decision of the Patna High Court in Jitendra Vs. The State Bank of India through its Chairman-cum Managing Director, Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhawan Nariman Point, Mumbai1 to contend that, no mandamus could be issued against the Bank Authority for sanctioning the loan by invoking the writ jurisdiction. The said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case, because the petitioner has not sought for any such mandamus seeking direction to respondent No.2, but he is seeking to quash Annexure - 'F' 1 CWJC-19852/2013 dated 28.03.2023 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47010 WP No. 22140 of 2025 issued by the petitioner. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The letter dated 17.10.2023 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure - 'F', is hereby quashed. (iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to treat the loan account as closed and release the properties that are mortgaged by the petitioner forthwith, without driving the petitioner to one more round of litigation. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10