1 CGHC010214842021 2026:CGHC:41576 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3451 of 2021 1 - Sau Gaon Mahajan Mukti Samooh Sangh Through Its President Kashtu Uraon S/o Nohar Sai Uraon Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village Dakwa, Police Station And Tehsil Rajpur Revenue District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Home Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Capital Complex New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Its Chairman Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Head Office Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Its Recovery Officer Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Branch Manager Chhattisgarh, Rajya Gramin Bank Branch Rajpur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 2 6 - Branch Manager Chhattisgarh, Rajya Gramin Bank Branch Bario District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Branch Manager Chhattisgarh, Rajya Gramin Bank Branch Deepahdih District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Branch Manager Chhattisgarh, Rajya Gramin Bank Branch Rehra District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2/State : Mr. Keshav Gupta, G.A. For Respondents No. 3 to 8 : Mr. Raj Shengale, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24/09/2026 1. The petitioner herein has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent banks to consider all the loan account cases of members of Sau Gaon Mahajan Mukti Samooh Sangh in light of the Krishi Rin Mafi Aur Rahat Yojna 2008. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent banks to close all the agricultural loan accounts of all the farmers being members of Sau Gaon Mahajan Mukti Samooh Sangh. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to restrain the respondent banks to recover any loan amount or initiate any recovery proceeding against the agricultural 3 loan given to the farmers being members of Sau Gaon Mahajan Mukti Samooh Sangh. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent banks to deposit back the amount already recovered in the bank account of the farmer being members of Sau Gaon Mahajan Mukti Samooh Sangh which were illegally deducted. 10.5 Any other relief (s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case. 2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner society applied for providing small loans to various groups of farmers and subsequently, loans were provided to the said groups of farmers for carrying out their small businesses by respondents No. 3 to 8. In the first round of litigation, the petitioner society filed a writ petition before this Court bearing No. WPC/1725/2015, however, vide order dated 28/09/2015 (Annexure P/6), the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner to file proper writ petition. Thereafter, a second writ petition bearing No. WP(PIL)/13/2016 was filed by the petitioner in the form of a public interest litigation which stood dismissed by order dated 10/03/2016 (Annexure P/7) holding that the petition in its present form as PIL is not maintainable. The said order (Annexure P/7) was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 9014/2017 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the SLP reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to approach the 4 competent authority including the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Pursuant thereof, petitioner approached the competent authority/respondents herein claiming waiver of their loans and when no decision was taken, petitioner again filed a writ petition bearing No. WPC/3848/2019. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 24/10/2019 (Annexure P/10) with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner with regard to waiver of their loans in terms of the applicable scheme of 2008. In paragraph 6 of the order, it has clearly been recorded that “this Court has not expressed any opinion so far as the entitlement of the waivers to the petitioner are concerned.” Thereafter, again the petitioner filed representations before respondents No. 3 to 8 but they have not been considered and decided and recovery notices were again issued against the members of the petitioner society. 3. Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that various groups of farmers applied for loan and they were provided the said loan for the purpose of purchasing seeds, carrying on their businesses, etc., as such, since these loans were sort of agricultural loans, therefore, the scheme introduced by the State Government namely Krishi Rin Mafi Rin Rahat Yojna, 2008 for providing benefit to the farmers/agriculturists by waiving their loans would apply in case of the petitioner society in full force. He 5 would further submit that respondents No. 3 to 8 have not decided the entitlement of the petitioner society despite of order dated 24/10/2019 (Annexure P/10) passed by this Court in WPC/3848/2019. Thus, respondents No. 3 to 8 may be directed to consider and decide the entitlement of the petitioner society expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Raj Shengale, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 to 8, would oppose and contend that only agricultural loans advanced to the farmers was waived by the Government by way of its policy of the year 2008. He would further argue that petitioner society did not apply for agricultural loans and therefore, they are not entitled for any waiver whatsoever. As such, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Keshav Gupta, learned State counsel, would submit that the dispute pertains to entitlement for waiver of loan and it persists between the petitioner society and respondents No. 3 to 8. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. A careful perusal of the record would show that in WPC/3848/2019, a coordinate Bench of this Court has issued a direction to the concerned Bank to decide the entitlement of the petitioner and other groups, however, till date no decision has been taken. It appears that petitioner and the groups associated with the petitioner had failed to approach the respondent Bank 6 along with separate representations and therefore, no decision has been taken by them in this regard. 8. Having considered the above discussions and facts, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner society and other groups associated with the petitioner who had taken loan from the concerned Bank to make separate representations within 30 days and the respondent Bank is directed to decide such representations particularly, the issue with regard to entitlement of petitioner and other groups, preferably within a period of further 90 days. It is needless to say that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matters. It is also directed that for the period of 90 days, the interim order granted vide order dated 25/08/2021 shall continue. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Harneet