Non-loanee farmers sought payment of crop-insurance claims under the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme. The Court dismissed all three petitions, declining relief against an unchallenged Task Force report rejecting their claims and refusing belated factual adjudication under Article 226.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12837 of 2018
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 2/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 3/46
Police Station- Shikarganj, District- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 4/46
Motihari, through its Managing Direcotor.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13223 of 2018
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 5/46
Station- Chiraiya, District- East Champaran.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 6/46
... ... Respondents
East Champaran at Motihari
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 7/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 8/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 9/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 10/46
100 Lalan Singh Son of Late Asesar Singh Resident of Village- Kadhan, Police . Station- Kesariya, District- East Champaran.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 11/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 12/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 13/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 14/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 15/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 16/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 17/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 18/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 19/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 20/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 21/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 22/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 23/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 24/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 25/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 26/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 27/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 28/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 29/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 30/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 31/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 32/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 33/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 34/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 35/46
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 36/46
... ... Respondents
====================================================== Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12837 of 2018)
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 37/46
| For the Petitioner/s | : | Mr.Sansay Kumar, Advocate |
|---|---|---|
| For the State | : | Mr.Balram Kapri, AC to SC-26 |
| For the A.I.C. | : | Mr.Rajen Sahay, Advocate |
| For the Bank | : | Mr.Bindhyachal Rai, Advocate |
| (In Civil Writ Jurisdic | tion Case | No. 13223 of 2018) |
| For the Petitioner/s | : | Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate |
| For the State | : | Mr.Mahendra Prasad Verma, AC to SC-20 |
| For the A.I.C. | : | Mr.Rajen Sahay, Advocate |
| For the Bank | : | Mr.Bindhyachal Rai, Advocate |
| (In Civil Writ Jurisdic | tion Case | No. 15399 of 2018) |
| For the Petitioner/s | : | Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate |
| For the State | : | Mr.Syed Iqbal Ahmad, SC-20 |
| For the A.I.C. | : | Mr. Rajeyn Sahay, Advocate |
| For the Bank | : | Mr.Bindhyachal Rai, Advocate |
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER
2 16-09-2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in all these
three writ applications as well as learned counsel for National Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited and learned counsel for the Motihari Central Cooperative Bank Limited as also the State.
Petitioners in all these three writ applications are looking for a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to pay their claims on account of crop insurance for the Rabi crop pertaining to the year 2008-09 and Kharif crop insurance claim for the year 2009. It is the prayer of the petitioners that their cases should also be considered in terms of the order dated 11.04.2016 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17831 of 2015 which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 1477 of 2016.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 38/46
The petitioners in first two writ applications are from Chiraiya Block in the district of East Champaran whereas the petitioners in the third writ application are from Kesariya Block of the same district.
Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that on facts all these three writ applications are identical, thus, they may be disposed of by a common order. Accordingly this Court is disposing of all the three writ applications by this common order.
The petitioners are members of the different Primary Agriculture Credit Society (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PACS’) affiliated to District Central Bank Limited, Motihari and they are the non-loanee members of their respective ‘PACS’.
Under the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Scheme’) the small and marginal farmers have been provided the benefits of crop insurance. The Scheme provides the benefit of subsidy in the premium. According to the facts stated in the writ application, a farmer having two hectares (5 acres) or less are categorized as small farmers and a farmer having one hectare or less (2.5 acres) are categorized as marginal farmers. They would get the benefit of
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 39/46
10% of the premium amount by way of subsidy. The claim on account of crop insurance has to be borne in equal proportion by the Central Government and the State Government. So far as the Insurance Company is concerned, it is only an implementing agency to disburse the claim on being satisfied with its genuineness.
While it is the case of the petitioners that their crops were duly insured against the premium paid by them to the Central Cooperative Bank and they are entitled to get the benefit of the crop insurance, the Insurance Company has taken a stand that there being huge irregularities in the matter of effecting crop insurance in the district of East Champaran, the State Government had constituted a Task Force to look into the irregularities and the said Task Force having examined the claim of insurance by the non-loanee farmers of the district submitted a report enlisting the name of the non-loanee farmers whose claims were not acceptable. It is, thus, the stand of the Insurance Company that once the name of these petitioners find place in the report submitted by the Task Force wherein their claims have been found not acceptable, the petitioners having not challenged the said report of the Task Force which was submitted as back as on 01.06.2012 cannot contend before this
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 40/46
Court that their claims are still liable to be paid.
It is the contention of Mr. Rajan Sahay, learned counsel representing the Insurance Company that so far as reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment rendered by this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 17831 of 2015 is concerned, the same is totally misplaced inasmuch as every case has to be decided only on its own facts and the judgment of the Court cannot be cited like euclid's theorem because the slightest change in the facts of the case would make a sea difference in the judgment of the Court. Reliance in this regard has been made on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And Anr. Vs. N.R. Vairamani & Others reported in 2004 (8) SCC 579.
It is submitted that in C.W.J.C. No. 17831 of 2015, there were only five petitioners who had shown to the learned writ court from the materials placed on the record particularly the Land Possession Certificate and other documents that the findings recorded in their respect in the report of the Task Force were not correct. Out of five petitioners, the four had been able to establish their claims with the materials placed on the record, therefore, their cases were considered by the learned writ court but the case of one of the petitioners was still rejected because
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 41/46
he had not been able to substantiate his claim. It is submitted that in the present case there is neither any challenge to the report of the Task Force nor any pleading is available on the record mush less any document to support the claim of the petitioners and there being altogether 738 farmers who have moved this Court at this belated stage, it may, perhaps, not be possible for this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to take upon itself an exercise to record a finding of fact contrary to the report of the Task Force and then to allow the writ application. It is submitted that some more farmers are in waiting and the writ applications have been presented which has yet not been registered.
Learned counsel submits that there is one more reason not to accept this writ application at this stage and that would be the delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in moving this Court for the relief prayed in the writ application. It is submitted that the delay is to be seen in the context in which the writ application has been filed and the reliefs have been prayed. In a given case the slightest of delay of few days may prove fatal to the petitioners and the relief may be refused.
In the present case, the admitted fact is that the Task Force had submitted it’s report on 01.06.2012 and thereafter the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 42/46
Central Cooperative Bank had submitted the revised claims on different occasions, copies of which are enclosed as Annexure ‘R/4’ series to the counter affidavit of the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company has paid all those claims about which there was no doubt in the Task Force report. It is submitted that presently in respect of the Rabi crop insurance of the year 2008-09 and the Kharif crop insurance claim of 200809, no claim is pending with the Insurance Company. It is further submitted that this writ application has been preferred six years after the report of the Task Force that too without challenging the same.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the State and the Bank, this Court is of the considered opinion that there being a report of the Task Force constituted by the State Government which has found the claim of the petitioners not acceptable and not genuine, unless the report of the Task Force is set aside, no relief may be granted to the petitioners. In the writ applications, there is no challenge to the report of the Task Force. There is also no pleading in the writ application even to prima facie demonstrate that the findings of the Task Force are perversed and contrary to the materials available on the record. There
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 43/46
being no foundation of the facts in the writ applications to demonstrate that the Task Force report is otherwise liable to be set aside, this Court would not be able to mould the relief as it is well settled that for moulding the relief there should be at least the foundation of facts indicating towards the illegality in the decision making process. In the present case, the petitioners have chosen not to enclose even prima-facie documents which were available before the learned writ court in C.W.J.C.No. 17831 of 2015 and, therefore, the Court cannot proceed to record even a prima-facie view in the matter. What is relevant to take note of with respect to the background in which the Task Force was constituted may be found in the letter no. 1300 dated 27.03.2012 written by the Joint Secretary, Department of Cooperative, Government of Bihar to all the District Magistrates of East Champaran(Motihari), West Champaran (Bettiah), Siwan and Muzaffarpur. The contents of the same are extracted hereinunder for ready reference:-
“fcgkj ljdkj lgdkfjrk foHkkx i=kad 1300@iVuk] fnukad 27-03-12 izs’kd] jkekJ; dqekj] ljdkj ds la;qDr lfpo A lsok esa] ftyk inkf/kdkjh] iwohZ pEikj.k ¼eksfrgkjh½@if”peh pEikj.k ¼csfr;k½@floku ,oa eqt¶QjiqjA
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 44/46
fo’k; % jk’Vªh; df’k chek ;kstuk ds rgr jch 2008&09 ,oa [kjhQ 2009 ekSle esa dsUnzh; lgdkjh cSad fy0 ,oa mlls lEc) iSDlksa }kjk chfer xSj _.kh d’kdksa ds chek ds d`’kdokj lR;kiu izfrosnu ij vko”;d ekxZ&n”kZu ds laca/k esa A
egk”k;]
funs”kkuqlkj mi;qZDr fo’k; ds laca/k esa lwfpr djuk gS fd jk’Vªh; df’k chek ;kstuk ds rgr~ jch 2008&09 ,oa [kjhQ 2009 ekSle esa dsUnzh; lgdkjh cSad fy0 rFkk muls lEc) iSDlksa }kjk fd;s x;s xSj _.kh d’kdksa ds chek dk d`’kdokj lR;kiu ds Øe esa dqN fcUnqvksa ij ekxZn”kZu dh vis{kk dh x;h Fkh] ftldk fujkdj.k djrs gq, foHkkxh; i=kad 5409 fnukad 09-12-11 }kjk ekxZn”kZu izsf’kr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk fuEukafdr fcUnqvksa ij vko”;d ekxZn”kZu jkT; ljdkj ds le{k fopkjk/khu Fkk ;Fkk%&
¼d½ vf/kd Hkwfe j[krs gq, y?kq ,oa lhekar d`’kd ds :i esa chek djuk A ¼[k½ de Hkwfe dk ,y-ih-lh- j[krs gq, vf/kd Hkwfe dk chek djkuk A ¼x½ ,y-ih-lh- dk jdok] Hkw&yxku jlhn ds jdok ls de gksus ij chek djkuk A
mi;qZDr fcUnqvksa ij fof/k foHkkx dh fof/k jk; izkIr dh xbZ gS A fof/k foHkkx] fcgkj ls izkIr ijke”kZ ds vkyksd esa dafMdk ^d* ,oa ^[k* Js.kh ds d’kdksa dks {kfriwfrZ jkf”k vuqekU; ugha gksaxh A mDr Js.kh ds xSj _.kh d’kdksa }kjk Qly chek djkus esa Ny@diV@csbZekuh dk lgkjk ysdj ljdkj ls {kfriwfrZ jkf”k izkIr djus dk vlQy iz;kl fd;k x;k gS rFkk cM+s Hkw&/kkjh y?kq ,oa lhekar d’kd ds :i esa chek djkdj izhfe;e dh jkf”k esa 1000% dk NwV izkIr fd;s gSa] tks ljdkjh /ku dk Li’V nq:i;ksx gSA bl Js.kh ds d’kdksa ds fo:) Hkkjrh; n.M fo/kku dh lqlaxr /kkjkvksa ds rgr~ dkjZokbZ fd;k tkuk pkfg,A
vr% mDr nksuksa Js.kh ds d’kdksa ds chek esa layXu nks’kh d’kd] iSDl v/;{k rFkk cSad dfeZ;ksa ds fo:) mRrjnkf;Ro dk fu/kkZj.k djrs gq, mudk foLr`r uke@firk dk uke] i=kpkj dk irk@chek djkus okys iSDl dk uke] i=kpkj ds irk] vkfn
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 45/46
dh foLr`r lwph rS;kj dj okafNr dkuwuh@foHkkxh; dkjZokbZ ds fy, VkLd QkslZ esa fu.kZ; fy;k tk; rFkk vuq”kalk ds lkFk foHkkx dks lwfpr djus dk d’V fd;k tk; rkfd bl fufer vxzsrj dkjZokbZ dh tk ldsA
Øekad ^x* Js.kh ds xSj _.kh d’kd tks chek djkus ds Øe esa LPC ds cnys Hkw&yxku jlhn tek fd;s gSa rFkk lR;kiu ds le; LPC tek fd;s gSa] ,oa LPC esa vafdr jdok] Hkw&yxku jlhn dh jdok ls de gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa LPC esa vafdr jdok ds vk/kkj ij chfer jkf”k dk fu/kkZj.k djrs gq, mUgsa {kfriwfrZ jkf”k vuqekU; gksxh] c”kÙksZ mDr Js.kh ds xSj _.kh d’kd] chek djkus dh vU; lHkh “kÙkksZ dk ikyu fd;s gksaA
bl Øe esa ;g Hkh dguk gS fd lHkh lR;kiu dk;Z ekpZ&2012 rd iw.kZ djrs gq, chek ds ;ksX; d’kdksa gsrq vuqekU; {kfriwfrZ jkf”k dh fooj.kh] {ks=h; izca/kd] ,xzhdYpj ba”;ksjsal daiuh vkWQ bafM;k fy0] iVuk dks miyC/k djkus dh dik djsa rkfd {kfriwfrZ Hkqxrku gsrq jkT;ka”k jkf”k daiuh dks foeqDr dh tk lds !
fo”oklHkktu
g0v0 ¼jkekJ; dqekj½
ljdkj ds la;qDr lfpo Kkikad 1300 @iVuk] fnukad 27-03-12 izfrfyfi % izca/k funs”kd] dsUnzh; lgdkjh cSad fy0] eqt¶Qjiqj]] floku] csfr;k ,oa eksfrgkjh@ftyk lgdkfjrk inkf/kdkjh] eqt¶Qjiqj] floku] csfr;k ,oa eksfrgkjh dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko”;d dkjZokbZ gsrq izsf’kr A
g0v0
ljdkj ds la;qDr lfpoA Kkikad 1300 @iVuk] fnukad 27-03-12 izfrfyfi % {ks=h; izca/kd] ,xzhdYpj ba”;ksjsUl daiuh vkWQ bafM;k fy0 Ýstj jksM] iVuk dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko”;d dkjZokbZ gsrq izsf’krA
g0v0
ljdkj ds la;qDr lfpoA Kkikad 1300 @iVuk] fnukad 27-03-12 izfrfyfi % vk;qDr] frjgqr izeaMy] eqt¶Qjiqj ,oa lkj.k ize.My] Nijk dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko”;d
Patna High Court CWJC No.12837 of 2018(2) dt.16-09-2019 46/46
dkjZokbZ gsrq izsf’krA
g0v0 ljdkj ds la;qDr lfpoA ”
It is in the light of the aforesaid complaint and enquiry
that the Task Force has submitted a report, this Court, therefore, finds itself in agreement with the submission of Mr. Sahay, learned counsel for the Insurance Company that this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not take upon itself an exercise of a fact finding Court that too at this belated stage when all remedies under common law have become barred by limitation for these petitioners.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, all these writ applications are dismissed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
vats/ved
U
2 issues framed by the court
Could crop-insurance payments be directed without challenging the Task Force report rejecting the farmers' claims?
Could the Court undertake factual adjudication under Article 226 at a belated stage when common-law remedies had become time-barred?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
C.W.J.C.No. 17831 of 2015Distinguished¶877
L.P.A. No. 1477 of 2016Referred¶856
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And Anr. Vs. N.R. Vairamani & OthersReferred¶867
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And Anr. Vs. N.R. Vairamani & Others reported in 2004 (8) SCC 579. · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ran Vijay Kumar Singh
Madhwendra Kumar Mishra
Vikash Kumar Pandey
The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna
The Zonal Manager, Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited, Frazer Road, Patna
The Motihari District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., East Champaran at Motihari, through its Managing Director
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
