JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER(ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner present. None is present for the respondent despite second call. The respondent be proceeded against ex parte. 2. This order shall decide three revision petitions which are detailed above and entail same question of facts and law. We take the facts from revision petition No. 593 of 2013-Muppalla Sambasiva Rao vs. Andhra Bank. The facts of this case are these. The complainant is an agriculturist. He availed short term crop loan of Rs.1,95,000/- from Andhra Bank on 12.2.2007. In the meantime, the Government of India issued “Debt Waiver and Relief Scheme, 2008” and gave some relief to all crop loan including gold loan, to the farmers. The complainant could not get the benefit of that Scheme. The complainant having no option paid the balance amount of Rs.2,36,690/- and obtained the gold ornaments with a view to avoid auction of the gold ornaments. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint but the State Commission accepted the appeal filed by Andhra Bank. 3. The only question which falls for consideration is whether the said scheme is applicable to the loan availed by the complainant under Section 4(1) (a) of the Scheme vide ex. B2, which is reproduced as follows: “In the case of a short term production loan, the amount of such loan (together with applicable interest. i) Disbursed up to March 31, 2007 and over due as on December 31, 2007 and remaining unpaid until February 29, 2008. ii) Restructured and rescheduled by Banks in 2004 and in 2006 through the special packages announced by the Central government, where overdue or not’ and iii) Restructured and rescheduled in the normal course up to March 31, 2007 as per applicable RBI guidelines on account of natural calamities whether overdue or not” 4. Therefore, it is made clear that in order to take advantage of this scheme, three conditions will have to be fulfilled. (i) The loan shall be disbursed on or before 31.3.2007. (ii) The loan shall be over due as on 31.12.2007 (iii) The loan shall be remain unpaid by 29.2.2008. 5. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the complainant availed the loan of Rs.1,95,000/- on 12.2.2007 for a period of one year and the loan was repayable by 11.2.2008. The State Commission came to the conclusion that first and third conditions are fulfilled and the second condition was not fulfilled. It was contended that the loan availed by the complainant was not over due by 31.12.2007. To our mind, the decision taken by the State Commission is not legally tenable. It may be mentioned that lot of complaints were filed in this respect by both the parties. It is also noteworthy that the same State Commission took contradictory views. Consequently, some appeals were filed by the farmers and some other appeals were filed by Andhra Bank. 6. We have already decided this matter in a number of cases. For ready reference, revision petition No. 1707 of 2012 titled as Andhra Bank vs. Vajrala Venkata Reddy decided on 03.01.2013 is one of the instances. Two other connected cases are revision petition No. 1708 of 2012 and 1709 of 2012. 7. Aggrieved by that order, Special Leave to Appeal (civil) No. 25106 of 2013 titled as Andhra Bank vs. Vajrala Venkata Reddy was filed before Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 19.8.2013. 8. In Andhra Bank vs. Vajrala Venkata Reddy (supra) it was held by this Commission : “He agreed that the first is met in all the three cases, as the respective loans were sanctioned/disbursed in March, 2007, but argued that the second condition was not met. In this regard, he drew our attention to Clause 5 in the ‘Declarations of the applicant’ in the loan application cum sanction document. It states:- “I undertake to repay the loan amount together with interest at 9.5% p.a. with month/quarterly rests, appraising charges and other bank charges within one year from the date of sanction or demand from the Bank. According to learned counsel, in these cases neither the period of one year was over nor any demand for repayment had been raised by the Bank. Therefore, the loans cannot be considered ‘overdue as on 31.12.2007’. The inherent fallacy of this argument is apparent. Its acceptance would mean that all such loans which were disbursed by the OP within a period of one year ending 31.12.2007, would fall beyond consideration under the Government of India Scheme 2008, on the ground of not being overdue. But, loans disbursed upto 31.3.2007 are specifically made eligible for consideration under the scheme. Therefore, we reject this contention and hold that it has rightly been rejected by the State Commission as well as the District Forum.” 9. Under the circumstances, we accept the revision petition filed by the complainants, and set aside the orders passed by the State Commission and restore the order of the District Forum which runs as follows: “15. POINT NO. 4. In view of the above findings in the result, the complaint is partly allowed as indicated below: 1. The opposite party is directed to apply the benefits of the Agricultural Debt waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 to the complainant treating him as ‘other farmer’ both on the extent of loan and his holding and refund the eligible amount together with interest @9% p.a. from the date of complaint (i.e. from 08.10.10) till payment. 2. The relief of compensation is rejected. 3. Each party is directed to bear their own costs. 4. The amount ordered above shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.” 9. All the three revision petition stand disposed of. | 
