In this PIL challenging the implementation of the 2009 Maharashtra Agricultural Loan Waiver Scheme, the court noted ineligible farmers received benefits due to bank pressure. While not entertaining the petition, the court directed the State to initiate recovery proceedings against such ineligible beneficiaries.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
pil135
1
ssp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.135 OF 2010
Shankar Ramchandra Shinde ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors....Respondents
None for the Petitioner
Mr.N.P.Deshpande for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Ms Monali Patil i/b Ms Ujwala Sawant for respondent
Nos.6R to 6X.
CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
A.A.SAYED, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 9, 2014
P.C.:
1This is a Public Interest Litigation where the
challenge is to the implementation of the scheme
viz. Maharashtra State Agricultural Loan Waiver and
Agricultural Loan Repayment Concession Scheme,2009.
None appeared for the petitioner on the last two
occasions.
2We have perused the petition, its annexures and
the reply filed by Shri R.H.Kawachale, Joint
Registrar(Audit),CooperativeSocieties,
Maharashtra State, Pune. The grievance in this
petition is regarding the illegalities committed in
implementation of the Maharashtra State Agricultural
Loan Waiver and Agricultural Loan Repayment
Concession Scheme, 2009. A contention is raised
that number of persons from Satara District who were
2 pil135
ineligible for benefits under the said scheme have
taken the benefits under the said scheme. The
contention is that the Satara District Central Co
operative Bank with intention to improve the
recovery of the said bank pressurized subordinate
Officers to add the names of non eligible persons to
the list of beneficiaries and, therefore, the
benefit of scheme was extended to ineligible
farmers. It is contended that though the authorities
were aware regarding the extension of the benefit of
the scheme to the ineligible farmers, no action was
taken.
3We have perused the affidavit of Mr.R.H.Kausal,
Joint Registrar (Audit), Cooperative Societies,
Maharashtra. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit, he
has set out the procedure for preparation of list of
eligible farmers. List of eligible farmers is
prepared by the primary agriculture credit society
which is forwarded to the Satara District Central
Cooperative Bank which is again checked at two
levels by the District Central Cooperative Bank. It
is stated that an audit was made and it was revealed
that 7030 ineligible persons were granted relief.
Paragraph 12 refers to constitution of the Committee
of the Officers of the Department of Cooperation
and the report submitted by the said Committee.
4Considering what is stated in the affidavit of
theJointRegistrar(Audit),Cooperative
Societies,Maharashtra,Pune, we find that exercise
has been done by the State Government to find out
3 pil135
ineligible persons who have taken the benefit of the
scheme. Therefore, though we are not entertaining
this petition, we direct the State Government to
ensure that recovery proceedings are initiated in
accordance with law against ineligible persons who
have taken benefit of the scheme.
5Subject to what is observed above, petition is
disposed of.
Shankar Ramchandra Shinde
State of Maharashtra
A.S. Oka
A.A. Sayed
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court