Dismissed

Kailash Chhagan Chaudhari v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC27 Mar 2017PIL/66/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL by a village Sarpanch challenged the alleged discriminatory implementation of a Government loan reschedulement scheme in a drought-affected taluka. The Court found the petition based on vague allegations and personal vendetta, applying Supreme Court precedents to dismiss the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Public Interest Litigation dismissed after costs; Rs.20,000 diverted to Legal Services Sub Committee.

Kailash Chhagan Chaudhari Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

pil66.16

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 66 OF 2016

¶5

Kailash Chhagan Chaudhari Age 49 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o. Khedi (Avhane), Tq. and District Jalgaon PAN No. AIZPC3192J ...Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary Co-operation and Textile Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

¶9

The Commissioner for Co-operation and the Registrar, Co-operation Department, Maharashtra State PUNE

¶10

The Commissioner, Directorate of Agriculture, Maharashtra State, PUNE

¶11

The Chief General Manager National Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, Regional Office, PUNE

¶12

The Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Nashik District Nashik

¶13

The District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Jalgaon

¶14

pil66.16 -2District Jalgaon 8. The District Collector, Jalgaon District Jalgaon 9. The Managing Director, Jalgaon District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Head Office Ring Road, Jalgaon District Jalgaon 10. The Chairman, Jalgaon District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Head Office Ring Road, Jalgaon District Jalgaon ...Respondents ..... Mr. V.P. Patil, advocate for the petitioner Mr. A.B. Girase, Government Pleader, for respondents 1 to 4 & 6 to 8. Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate for respondent No.9 Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi, advocate for respondent No.10. ..... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND V. K. JADHAV, JJ. Date of Reserving the Judgment : 09.03.2017 Date of pronouncing the Judgment : 27.03.2017

¶15

JUDGMENT (PER V.K. JADHAV, J.):-

¶16

Heard.

¶17

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.

¶18

pil66.16

¶19

By way of this public interest litigation, the petitioner is seeking following directions against the respondents:-

¶20

“A) This Hon'ble Court by way of appropriate writ, order or directions in the like nature be pleased to direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take immediate steps regarding grant of benefit of scheme of re-schedulement of Cooperative loan as well as stay to the recovery by the Cooperative bank from the farmers as per the Government Resolution dated 11.3.2016 published by Co-operation and Textile department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and further be pleased to direct the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 District Central Co-operative bank to grant benefit of Government Resolution to all the farmers as well as those who have taken crop loans for Banana crop, Tissue loan etc.

¶21

B) This Hon'ble court by way of appropriate writ, order or directions, in the like nature be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 Principal Secretary, Revenue department to initiate enquiry into the matter of assessment regarding drought situation and be pleased to further declare Dharangaon Taluka as well as other Talukas in Jalgaon district as drought affected.”

¶22

pil66.16

¶23

-4-

¶24

Brief facts giving rise to the present public interest litigation are as follows:-

¶25

The Government of Maharashtra has taken a decision in respect of re-schedulement of crop loan and stay to the recovery of loans in the drought affected area of the State of Maharashtra and accordingly issued a Government Circular dated 11.3.2016 in this regard. As per the said circular dated 11.3.2016, Kharip and Rabbi Seasons of the year 2015-16, the villages wherein Anewari is less than 50 paise, benefit of the said scheme for re-schedulemenet of loans advanced by the Co-operative banks to such farmers and stay to the recovery of loan has been granted. In this P.I.L. the petitioner has raised his grievance about discriminatory implementation of the said circular in Jalgaon district, particularly in Dharangaon Taluka. According to the petitioner, though there is no adequate rainfall and there is drought situation in Jalgaon district, the concerned department under the political influence and due to bias mind, has not declared the entire Dharangaon Taluka as drought affected Taluka. It has also alleged that due to personal conflict between the concerned Minister, survey was not conducted properly. In consequence of which Dharangaon Taluka is not declared as drought affected area though adjacent Talukas are declared as

¶26

drought affected. The respondent authorities have failed to implement the said scheme introduced by the Statement Government, in proper manner. Even though the farmers of Banana crop grower have been facing great difficulties due to drought situation the respondent authorities have misinterpreted the said scheme and deprived those farmers from getting benefit of the said scheme. The respondent bank is playing with the lives of such farmers in not granting benefit of the scheme introduced by the State Government.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is Sarpanch of village Khedi, Tq. and district Jalgaon. The petitioner came to be elected as Director of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Jalgaon and later on as Vice Chairman of the said market committee. Since January, 2016, the petitioner is requesting Jalgaon District Central Co-operative Bank to grant benefits of various schemes to the farmers regarding disbursement of loans and stay to the recovery of loan for the year 2015-16. There is no adequate rainfall and there is drought situation in Jalgaon district. Even though there is miserable situation, particularly in Dharangaon Taluka, the concerned department, with a bias mind, has not declared Dharangaon Taluka as drought affected Taluka. Learned counsel submits that due to political interference, the concerned

¶28

pil66.16 -6-

¶29

department has not properly conducted the survey in Dharangaon Taluka and forwarded incorrect figures to the revenue department of the State Government. Consequently, in Jalgaon Zilla some of the Talukas are intentionally not declared as drought affected area. As per the scheme introduced by way of Government circular dated 11.3.2016, there shall be stay to the recovery of earlier loan and the same is to be scheduled in five years installment and fresh loan is to be disbursed after re-schedulement. The provisions of said Circular have been misinterpreted by Jalgaon District Central Co-operative Bank, even though the loans in respect of banana crop and tissue culture have not been specifically mentioned in the said circular. The respondent bank by misinterpreting the said scheme, is not granting benefits to the farmers, who have availed the loan for banana crops and tissues. There are heavy losses to the farmers, who are banana growers on account of refusal on the part of Jalgaon District Central Co-operative bank in not granting benefits of the scheme introduced by the State Government. The learned counsel submits that the direction may be issued to the State Government to take appropriate legal action against the concerned respondents and also to grant benefit of such scheme to all farmers without any discrimination. However, due to political influence, as aforesaid, a crime came to be registered against the petitioner and his friend for having committed offence of riot etc. in the office of Jalgaon District Central Co-

¶30

pil66.16 -7-

¶31

operative Bank, Jalgaon.

¶32

Learned counsel for respondent No.9 submits that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under the garb of public interest litigation because of personal vendetta and grudge of the petitioner against the respondent bank. The petitioner is not member of respondent No.9 bank. Village Khedi (Avhane) in Jalgaon district was covered under the aforesaid scheme at the relevant time. The petitioner was not eligible for the insurance against Banana crop for the season 2014-15, however, the petitioner was unnecessarily claiming insurance benefits for the said crop and pressurizing the bank authorities. The petitioner had started agitation against the bank and entered in the bank forcibly with some agriculturists and destroyed furniture, valuable documents of the bank and created terror in the staff members of the Bank. He has also caused damage to the chair and table of the Managing Director. Thus, a complaint was lodged with Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon and as such crime No. 9 of 2016 came to be registered against the petitioner on 12.01.2016 for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 353, 427 and 506 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 7 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has thus preferred this petition to counter blast the said case and out of personal grudge and vendetta against the

pil66.16

-8-

respondent Bank.

Learned counsel for respondent No.9 bank submits that the Government of Maharashtra has taken decision on 11.3.2016 for reschedulement of crop loan and stay to the recovery of loan against the agriculturists and as per the circular 16.4.2016, the responsibility of implementation of the said circular rests upon the Commissioner for Co-operation and Coordinator of the State Level bankers Committee, Bank of Maharashtra, Pune. However, the petitioner, instead of approaching the said committee for redressal of the grievance, has filed the present petition under the garb of public interest litigation.

¶37

Learned counsel for the respondent No.9 Bank submits that the circular dated 11.3.2016 is applicable to the villages, where Kharip and Rabi season anewari is less than 50 paise and it is not applicable to Bagayati crops like Banana and Tissue culture. In the last two seasons i.e. 2014-15 and 2015-16, total 89 villages of Dharangaon are declared as drought affected where anewari is less than 50 paise and thus, the said villages are getting benefits of the aforesaid Government scheme. As per the Government circular dated 11.3.2016, the respondent bank has given reschedulement of loan to 3469 farmers for the loan of Rs.15.23 Crores and also

¶38

pil66.16 -9-

¶39

disbursed an amount of Rs.699.89 Crores as crop loan in the district to 98240 farmers. There is no single complaint of any farmer for non receipt of crop loan. The petitioner has not annexed any complaint to this petition. The petitioner has made wild and baseless allegations without any proof. As per the Government policy, the crop financed under Kharip and rabbi seasons are to be rescheduled in 5 yearly installment where anewari is below 50 paise. The crop loan given to perennial crops or the bagayat crop like Banana, Tissue culture having sugarcane which are not dependent on the rainfall, the growers of the said crops cannot be considered as beneficiaries under the scheme. Such farmers are not entitled to benefits of the reschedulment of the crop loan. All the reschedulement schemes are to be implemented as per the guidelines and circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The Reserve Bank of India master circular dated 1.7.2014 provides guidelines for such scheme. There are discretionary powers vested in the bank in regards to adoption of scale of finance, extension of loan period, sanction of new loans keeping in view the total liabilities of the borrower mentioned in 1(d) of the Circular. Fresh loans quantum has to be decided by the bank taking into consideration the repayment capacity as per guidelines mentioned in the said circular. In the circular (B) – Development Loans – I) drought and (c) those who are having perennial source of irrigation not eligible for reschedulement. In Dharangaon Taluka

¶40

pil66.16 -10-

¶41

most of the borrowers have availed crop loan for tissue culture and banana, however, they have not utilized the said loan for tissue culture and banana. Even the statutory auditor of the bank has made such observations in his audit report. The respondent Bank has followed the Government direction and the Reserve Bank of India guidelines and the policy. There is no violation of policy decision. The petitioner has made vague allegations in the petition, which are not supported by any documents, data etc. The petitioner if having any genuine grievance, can approach the State level bankers committee and get his grievance redressed from the Forum provided.

¶42

We have also heard the learned Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 & 6 to 8 as well as learned counsel for respondent No.10.

¶43

We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. With their able assistance, we have perused the pleadings, grounds taken in the public interest litigation, annexures thereto, reply filed by the concerned respondents.

¶44

It appears from the submissions made in the petition that the petitioner has made grievance against the respondent bank. It has

¶45

pil66.16

¶46

-11-

¶47

been specifically alleged in the petition that Government Circular dated 11.3.2016 has been misinterpreted by the bank authorities and as such, the banana crop grower farmers deprived from getting benefits of the scheme as per the Government circular dated 11.3.2016. It has been alleged that the bank has made discrimination amongst the farmers for the reason best known to it. It has been also alleged in the petition that due to political influence by some of the political leaders in the district, the revenue department has not declared entire Dharangaon Taluka as drought affected Taluka. There was no adequate rainfall and there was drought situation in Jalgaon district. Thus, under the influence of then Revenue Minister, the discrimination was made in conducting survey by the revenue department and as such, Dharangaon Taluka was not declared as drought affected area.

¶48

In the case of Gurpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 136 , the Supreme Court has made the following observations:-

¶49

“I) The court must be satisfied about,

¶50

(a) the credentials of the applicant;

¶51

(b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him;

¶52

(c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved.

¶53

pil66.16

¶54

-12-

¶55

The court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests: (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions.”

¶56

In Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. vs. Prem Chandra Mishra, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 281 , in para 10-12 and 10-13, the Supreme Court has made the following observations:-

¶57

“10. '...12. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters- government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorised collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders, etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome

¶58

pil66.16

¶59

-13-

¶60

interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petition and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system.'”

¶61

10. '...13. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicityseeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta....”

¶62

In the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402, in the concluding para 181 of the judgment, the Supreme court issued following directions:-

¶63

“181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this Court and other courts in a number of judgments. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following

pil66.16

-14-

directions:

(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively descourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.

¶68

(2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter.

¶69

(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL.

¶70

(4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.

¶71

(5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.

¶72

(6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.

¶73

(7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filling the public interest litigation.

¶74

(8) The Court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar

¶75

pil66.16 -15-

¶76

novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.”

¶77

On careful perusal of the averments made in the instant petition, we find that the petition is based upon vague and indefinite information. It also appears that the petitioner has made wild and reckless allegations without any base, material in the from of documents, research, collection of data etc. We also noticed that behind the veil of P.I.L. the petitioner is trying to settle the score with the respondent bank. The petitioner has also made wild and reckless allegations against the political leaders with some ulterior motive.

¶78

On careful perusal of the documents submitted alongwith the affidavit in reply filed by the official of respondent No.9 bank, it appears that for last two seasons i.e. 2014-15 and 2015-16, total 89 villages in Dharangaon Taluka are declared as drought affected, where anewari is below 50 paise and thus, those villages are getting benefits under the above mentioned Government scheme. It also appears that the bank has given benefit of reschedulement of loan. The farmers in Jalgaon district have been disbursed certain amount which is in Crores of Rupees for crop loan. The petitioner has not annexed single complaint of any farmers of the said Taluka. Pursuant to the instructions given by head office of the Bank, the respondent bank has stayed recovery of the agriculture loan in the drought

¶79

pil66.16

¶80

-16-

¶81

affected villages in Jalgaon district. Respondent Bank has not taken any coercive action for recovery of the agricultural loan in declared drought affected villages. It also appears that the respondent Bank has implemented the Government Circular as per the guidelines and the circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time.

¶82

Thus, in the light of discussion made herein-above and in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra), we are not inclined to entertain this public interest litigation. The public interest litigation is therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged.

¶83

Out of the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.20,000/- be diverted to the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad and remaining amount of Rs.30,000/- be returned to the petitioner.

¶84

( V. K. JADHAV, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.)

¶85

rlj/

Kailash Chhagan Chaudhari v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Chhagan Chaudhari v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aam Aadmi Lok Manch through Its President Shri. P.P. Goyal Vs Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Shaikh Sameer Rashid and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vitthal Annarao Hajgude and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri Gautam Baburao Maske and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Santosh Hiralal Choudhari Alias Saratale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balasaheb Shivajirao Mhaske Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Gautam Tatyarao Shejul Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sardar Harwindersingh S/O Preetamsingh Dhunna Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development Department, Mumbai and 3

Babasaheb S/O Dagadu Borse Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Anr.

Shriram Baliram Poul Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Atul Subhashchand Sanghavi Vs Umesh Ramvilas Joshi and Others

Savita Arun Rathod Vs Sunil Digambar Chavan U/G of Father Digambar Sukhlal Chavan and Others

Lahu Gopinath Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kisan Soma Rathod (C-8098) Central Prison, Aurangabad Vs Bapurao Ramrao More, Superintendent, Central Prison Aurangabad and Another