JUDGMENT - V.K. BARDE, J.:---The present Writ Petition No. 1706 of 1987; and the other writ petitions involve same questions of facts and law; and, therefore, those are being disposed of by common judgment. 2. Writ Petition No. 1055 of 1989 is filed by the Osmanabad District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the O.D.C.C. Bank") while Writ Petition No. 1106 of 1989 is filed by the Latur District Central") Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the L.D.C.C. Bank"). The remaining writ petitions are filed like this Writ Petition No. 1706 of 1987 by various Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Societies from these two districts, Osmanabad and Latur. They are hereinafter referred to as "the Primary Co-operative Societies". 3. The Primary Co-operative Societies of the villages do the work of advancing loans to the farmers for various agricultural activities, including crop loan. The funds for advancing these loans are provided by the D.C.C. Banks of the districts, while the overall function of this loaning business is also under the control of the Apex Co-operative Bank, i.e., the Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Limited. The D.C.C. Bank makes available funds to the Primary Co-operative Societies of the villages and, for that, interest at the rate of 9 per cent, per annum is charged by the D.C.C. Bank, while the Primary Co-operative Societies, on advancing crop loans to the farmers, charge 12 per cent, per annum interest to the farmers. The farmer is expected to repay the loan along with interest at the end of the harvesting season. Loans are advanced for both kharif crops and rabi crops. 4. It is the age-old experience that the yield of crop in this region depends on the vagaries of the nature. Many a times, the crops fail either due to drought or due to floods; and sometimes, even due to crop diseases. Because of the failure of the crop, the farmers become unable to repay the loan with interest and they are also without any finances for the crop of the next season. The financial institutes, such as D.C.C. Bank and other Banks, also find it very difficult to recover such crop loans advanced to farmers in such conditions. To meet such contingencies, the Union Government brought in operation a scheme, entitled "Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme" (hereinafter referred to as "the C.C.I.S.") from kharif season of 1985. 5. The financial institutes, such as D.C.C. Bank and other Banks, also find it very difficult to recover such crop loans advanced to farmers in such conditions. To meet such contingencies, the Union Government brought in operation a scheme, entitled "Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme" (hereinafter referred to as "the C.C.I.S.") from kharif season of 1985. 5. The main objects of the C.C.I.S. are : (A) To provide a measure of financial support to farmers in the event of crop failure as a result of drought, flood etc.; (B) To restore the credit eligibility of the farmers after the crop failure for the next crop season; and (C) To support and stimulate production of cereals, pulses and oil seeds. 6. Under the C.C.I.S., certain notified areas from the State, which have signified their concurrence to participate in the C.C.I.S. are declared, so also, certain crops like rice, wheat, millets, oil seeds and pulses, are covered for the insurance purposes. The crops may be kharif crops or rabi crops, as per the scheme made applicable to the particular area. The farmers, who avail of crop loans from the co-operative credit institutes, commercial banks and regional rural banks for raising the said crops are covered under the C.C.I.S. 7. While advancing the loan to the farmer, the premium, as prescribed under the C.C.I.S., is deducted from the amount of loan by the bank advancing the loan and that amount then is paid to the General Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as "the G.I.C."), which is appointed as agent of the Central Government for the administration and management of the C.C.I.S. A subsidy is also provided for the amount of premium for the small and marginal farmer under the C.C.I.S. The crop insurance cover was prescribed at 150% of the crop loan. 8. The further salient feature of the C.C.I.S. is that 80% of the average yield of last five years of the particular crop in the particular notified area is considered as the threshold yield. 8. The further salient feature of the C.C.I.S. is that 80% of the average yield of last five years of the particular crop in the particular notified area is considered as the threshold yield. Thereafter, at the time of harvesting of the crop, by taking actual crop cutting, the average yield is ascertained, and then it is decided whether there is failure of the crop and whether the farmers are entitled to any amount of insurance as per the formula prescribed under the C.C.I.S. If there is failure of crop of such magnitude that the farmer is entitled to receive the insurance amount, then that amount is paid by the G.I.C. to the farmer. For this purpose Crop Insurance Fund is created and there is proportionate contribution to the Fund from the Central Government and the State Government. There is also method prescribed for sharing the insurance charges. 9. There is no dispute about all these aspects of the C.C.I.S. which are amply brought on record by both sides by producing on record the relevant Government Notification regarding the C.C.I.S. 10. For the kharif season of 1986-1987, the C.C.I.S. was made applicable in both Osmanabad and Latur Districts for jowar and groundnut crops. The farmers had taken loan through the Primary Co-operative Societies for these crops for the said season. There was failure of the crop and, therefore, the farmers were entitled to receive the amount of insurance from the respondents. Accordingly, insurance amount was paid, but only to those farmers, who had taken the crop loan during the period from 1st April, 1986 to end of September 1986. The farmers, who had taken loans during the period from 1st January, 1986 to 31st March, 1986 were not paid the crop insurance amount and, therefore, all these writ petitions are filed to claim insurance amount for such farmers. The Primary Co-operative Societies have contended that these farmers are their regular members and, therefore, on behalf of them, all these writ petitions are filed, while the D.C.C. Banks have also taken the same stand with the added ground that as the loans were advanced by the D.C.C. Banks to the farmers and the amount of premium deducted from such loans was paid by the D.C.C. Banks to the G.I.C., the D.C.C. Banks also have a direct interest in the matter. 11. 11. From the pleadings made in these various writ petitions, it is borne out that there is a letter, dated 18-11-1986, addressed to the Secretaries of Agriculture/Co-operation, to the State Governments implementing the C.C.I.S., and in the said letter, it is mentioned that the loans granted from 1st April, to 30th September would qualify for kharif insurance cover and the loans granted from 1st October to 31st March of the next year would qualify for the rabi insurance cover. On the basis of this letter, the Maharashtra State Crop Insurance Cell took the stand, as clarified in the letter dated 12-1-1987, that the farmers who had taken loans for jowar and groundnut crops of 1986 kharif season only during the period from 1st April to 30th September, 1986 would be entitled to receive the amount of insurance, and the farmers, who had taken loans during the period from 1st January to 31st March, 1986 were to be excluded from the operation of the C.C.I.S. 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioners have argued that the C.C.I.S. was notified in June 1985 and it was implemented from the kharif season of 1985-1986. During that year, the farmers, who had received loan amounts during the period from 1st January to 31st March, 1985, were considered eligible for receiving the insurance amount on account of failure of the crop. There was no communication till November 1986 that the farmers, who took loan for kharif crops from 1st January to 31st March, 1986, would not be entitled to get the benefit under the C.C.I.S. The D.C.C. Banks, as per their predetermined programme for advancing loans, have advanced loans to the farmers during the period from 1st January to 31st March, 1986 for kharif crops. The amount of premium payable on loans so advanced was deducted from the loan amounts and was transmitted to the G.I.C., by giving statement containing all the details, such as names of the farmers, the amount of loan advanced, the crop for which the loan was advanced, etc. The amount of premium payable on loans so advanced was deducted from the loan amounts and was transmitted to the G.I.C., by giving statement containing all the details, such as names of the farmers, the amount of loan advanced, the crop for which the loan was advanced, etc. Thereafter, the G.I.C. issued the Insurance Certificates on accepting the amount of premium and suddenly then, as per letter dated 12th January, 1987, it was communicated that the farmers, who had taken the loans during the period from 1st January to 31st March, 1986 would not be entitled to amount of insurance even though there was failure of kharif crops of jowar and groundnut in these two districts and insurance amount was paid as per the formula prescribed under the C.C.I.S. to the farmers, who had taken the loans during the period from 1st April to 30th September, 1986. 13. The main grievance of the petitioners is that when the contract of insurance was concluded by acceptance of premium and by issuance of the Insurance Certificate, the respondents are avoiding the payment of insurance amount on the basis of letter dated 18-11-1986. The scheme, which is prescribed in the letter dated 18-11-1986, cannot be made applicable retrospectively and the farmers cannot be deprived of their right to receive the insurance amount, which in ordinary course, they would have received. The method of loaning period given in the letter dated 18-11-1986 can be made applicable only for those loans, which are given after November 1986. It is strongly argued by all the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the respondents are estopped from denying their liability to pay the insurance amount by taking advantage of the letter dated 18-11-1986. The respondents must act as per the contract, which came into force on the date on which the farmers took the loans. 14. The respondents have admitted all the material facts, which are pleaded by the petitioners in the pleadings, with respect to the C.C.I.S., the advancement of loans to the farmers by the D.C.C. Banks, through the Primary Co-operative Societies, the failure of kharif jowar and groundnut crops in 1986-87 season, and the payment of insurance amount to the farmers, who had taken loans from 1st April to 30th September, 1986. 15. 15. However, the respondents have taken the stand that neither the D.C.C. Banks nor the Primary Co-operative Societies have locus standi to file these petitions. It is the contention of the respondents that they are not directly interested in the subject matter. They cannot represent the farmers, who had taken loans, and, who, according to the petitioners, claim to be the beneficiaries under the C.C.I.S. 16. However, we do no find any substance in this particular stand taken by the respondents. The option is given to the farmers to avail of the loans from the co-operative credit institutes, commercial banks and regional rural banks and it becomes the duty of the banks to deduct the amount of premium from the loans so advanced and to credit the same to G.I.C. So, on one hand the banks and the Primary Co-operative Societies are working as agents for the farmers, who are being covered under the C.C.I.S. and at the same time, they are also acting as agents for the respondents, who have sponsored the C.C.I.S. The amount of loan is advanced by the banks from their funds and, therefore, the banks are very much interested in seeing that the amount of loans are repaid. This has two facets; one the bank should not suffer financial losses because of the non-repayment of the loan; and the farmers should be financially capable of taking loan for the next seasons and should not be deprived of loan facility for the next season on the ground that they were defaulters in repayment of the previous loan. The banking business can progress only if the loans are paid in time and are recovered in time. If this cycle is broken, then, both, the banks and the farmers, will suffer. So, the banks, the Primary Co-operative Societies and the farmers have common interest in the C.C.I.S. If all these circumstances are taken into consideration, then, there is no doubt that the banks and the Primary Co-operative Societies have locus standi to file and maintain the present writ petitions for the farmers, who are the ultimate beneficiaries of the C.C.I.S. whose interests are being protected by the banks and the Primary Co-operative Societies. 17. One more aspect in this respect has to be taken into consideration. Under the C.C.I.S., there is no provision of any direct contract of insurance between the farmer and any of the respondents. 17. One more aspect in this respect has to be taken into consideration. Under the C.C.I.S., there is no provision of any direct contract of insurance between the farmer and any of the respondents. The entire C.C.I.S. is being implemented by the Central Government with the help of the State Government through the G.I.C. and the Primary Co-operative Societies and the banks. Naturally, in such circumstances, it is not necessary for the farmers to come forward to claim the amount of insurance. The respondents and the petitioner-societies have to take care of this aspect of the matter. So, it is not at all proper on the part of the respondents to challenge the locus standi of the petitioners. 18. The G.I.C., which has filed a common affidavit for all these writ petitions in Writ Petition No. 1706 of 1987, has also taken the stand that the loan, which was taken during the period from 1st January to 31st March, 1986 cannot be considered as loan given for kharif crops for the 1986-1987 season. The kharif crop is sown sometimes in June, and for that, lands are prepared in the month of May. So, the farmers require the loan about one or two months prior to the sowing of kharif crop. A loan, which is advanced during the period from January to March cannot be considered as loan advanced for kharif crop. It is also contended that there is nothing to show that such loans taken were actually used for the cultivation of kharif crop of 1986-1987 season. 19. It is true that the sowing of the kharif crop takes place in June or early July. It is also true that the lands are prepared for cultivation of kharif crop in the month of May. However, that does not mean that loan, which is taken during the period from January to March, was not taken for kharif crops. The bank had advanced the loan for the kharif crop. So, it is understood that it was advanced for kharif crop. If that particular amount is not used by the farmers, they must use some other amount at the appropriate time for the cultivation of kharif crop. The bank had advanced the loan for the kharif crop. So, it is understood that it was advanced for kharif crop. If that particular amount is not used by the farmers, they must use some other amount at the appropriate time for the cultivation of kharif crop. Furthermore, if an individual farmer has not actually grown kharif crop and has not used the loan for cultivation of the kharif crop, then it is a matter of that individual farmer and appropriate steps can be taken with respect to such farmer. But, a general statement cannot be made that loan, which was advanced for the kharif crops during the period from 1st January to 31st March, 1986, was not meant or used for kharif crops. 20. It also has to be noted that neither in the letter dated 18-11-1986, nor in the letter dated 12-1-1987, such a stand is taken by any of the respondents. The only stand taken is that the kharif crop loan should be advanced during the period from 1st April to end of September and if any loan is advanced outside this period, it would not be considered as loan for kharif crops, but as loans for the next crop. Only the loaning period is mentioned and the ground, which is being raised by the G.I.C., did not find place in these two letters. That was not the stand taken by the respondents for rejecting the insurance claims. An entirely new case is being made out by the G.I.C. 21. The G.I.C. has also taken objection with respect to the amounts shown as payable to the farmers in these various writ petitions. However, whatever may be the claim quantified by the petitioners, the fact remains that the farmers would get the amount of insurance only as per the formula prescribed under the C.C.I.S. Neither the petitioners, nor the respondents, can change the amount payable to the farmers, as per the formula prescribed, and especially when on the basis of that formula, the farmers, who had taken loan during the period from 1st April to 30th September, 1986, have received the amount of insurance. So, this dispute need not be an issue to reject the writ petitions. 22. So, this dispute need not be an issue to reject the writ petitions. 22. The common stand of the respondents is that a National Conference was held in July 1985 and at that time, clear indications about the loan period for kharif and rabi season every year were given. In spite of that, the State Governments were changing the dates of loaning from time to time; and, therefore, only by way of clarification, letter dated 18-11-1986 was issued. This letter is not changing the pattern of the C.C.I.S., but it only clarifies the position. So, the petitioners cannot take the stand that by the letter dated 18-11-1986, the rules are being changed and, therefore, it should not have retrospective effect. What was there already agreed upon is made clear by this letter dated 18-11-1986. 23. To consider this stand, first, it must be mentioned very clearly that neither in the Circular, dated 3rd May, 1985, nor in the C.C.I.S., which is notified later on, the loaning period is mentioned. The C.C.I.S. is at Exhibit A, page No. 28 in Writ Petition No. 1706 of 1987, while the Circular, dated 3rd May, 1986 is at Annexure I with the affidavit in reply of G.I.C. from page Nos. 76 to 90 in the said writ petition. Almost all the details are given in the C.C.I.S., but loaning period is not at all mentioned. There is also nothing on record indicating that the banks and Primary Co-operative Societies were independently informed in the year 1985, or, in the beginning of the year 1986, that the loaning period for kharif crops would be from 1st April to 30th September, and for rabi crops, would be from 1st of October to 31st of March of the next year. 24. How it can be said that clear indications were given to the participating States that the loaning period would be as mentioned above. If that had been so, there was no reason for the States to change the loaning period from time to time. The participating State Governments are contributing to the Insurance Fund. They know that they will be financially burdened if the discipline with respect to the loaning period is not observed by them. It was to the detriment of the interest of the State Governments to change the loaning period from time to time. The participating State Governments are contributing to the Insurance Fund. They know that they will be financially burdened if the discipline with respect to the loaning period is not observed by them. It was to the detriment of the interest of the State Governments to change the loaning period from time to time. So, in such circumstances, the stand taken by the G.I.C. and Union of India that it was already clarified in July 1985 that the loaning period for kharif crop should be from 1st April to 30th September is not acceptable. This statement made in the affidavit in reply by the G.I.C. and the Union of India does not find support from the documents or from the circumstances. 25. Here, the text of the letter, dated 18-11-1986, is very much important. It is a short letter and reads as follows . "Circular No. 5/85-86 No. 13011/10/85-Credit-II Government of India Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Agriculture and Co-operation) Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi, dated 18th November, 1986 To The Secretary (Agriculture/Co-operation, (Implementing States/U.Ts.) Subject : Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme Loaning periods for Kharif and Rabi Seasons Sir, The Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme is being implemented since kharif, 1985 season. It has come to the notice of the Central Government that the State Government/U.Ts. have been changing the dates of loaning from time to time. In fact, the two seasons, namely, kharif and rabi, are clearly defined. However, after giving careful consideration to the entire matter, it has been decided to adopt uniform loaning period for kharif and rabi seasons for the entire country for the purpose of crop insurance coverage only. The loans granted from 1st of April to 30th September would qualify for kharif insurance business. The proposals in respect of these loans can be forwarded to the G.I.C. latest by 31st October of that year. Loans granted from 1st October to 31st March of next year would qualify as rabi loans and proposals in respect of these loans should reach the G.I.C. latest by 30th April of the year. 2. The State Governments should adhere to the above schedule and should not extend the cut off dates. In case any loans are advanced after the season is over, these loans could be considered for the next crop. 3. All the State Governments are accordingly requested to adhere to the above loaning period for the purpose of crop insurance. 2. The State Governments should adhere to the above schedule and should not extend the cut off dates. In case any loans are advanced after the season is over, these loans could be considered for the next crop. 3. All the State Governments are accordingly requested to adhere to the above loaning period for the purpose of crop insurance. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (N.G. GARG) Director (Credit)." 26. Nowhere, in this letter, it is mentioned that it was communicated in the National Conference held in July 1985 that the loaning period should be as mentioned in the letter. It is also not mentioned in this letter that just to clarify the position, this letter is being issued. On the contrary, on reading the letter as a whole, it would come to know that the Central Government found that the loaning period was being changed from time to time by different States and to have discipline in this matter, for the first time, the loaning period was prescribed by this letter. 27. The learned Counsel for the petitioners have argued that this letter dated 18-11-1986 is written by the Director (Credit) and it is not known whether he was authorised to write such a letter by the Central Government; otherwise all other notifications and circulars are under the signatures either of Deputy Secretary or the Additional Secretary to the Union of India in the Ministry of Agriculture. So, it is the contention that this letter dated 18-11-1986 is coming from such a person, who had no authority to lay down the loaning period. However, as the Union of India in the affidavit in reply has specifically relied upon this letter, we need not go into question whether the Director (Credit) had any authority to write such a letter. 28. It also appears that this letter is the outcome of the experience which the Central Government had during the first two seasons of C.C.I.S. The C.C.I.S., in Clause 11, provides for monitoring and review; and it appears that under that clause of monitoring and review, the Central Government decided to fix the loaning period; and then it automatically means that this letter is only as a guidance for the future. It cannot be said that it was issued only by way of clarification of the C.C.I.S., already made known to everybody concerned, and especially to farmers. 29. It cannot be said that it was issued only by way of clarification of the C.C.I.S., already made known to everybody concerned, and especially to farmers. 29. For the first time, by the letter dated 18-11-1986, the loaning period is prescribed. So, when from January to March 1986, the banks had advanced the loans, they were not knowing that the loaning period was only from April to September. The farmers were not knowing that the loaning period was from April to September. The Central Government found it necessary to prescribe the loaning period because of the experience gained during the first two seasons of the working of the C.C.I.S. This letter neither can be considered as a clarification of the C.C.I.S., which was already intimated to all, nor can it be considered as a condition prescribed, which can be made applicable retrospectively. Reading the letter as a whole, it would be clear that it is issued for the future guidance regarding the loaning period. This letter cannot change the position, which was created during the period from 1st January to end of October, 1986. 30. While considering the responsibility of the respondents for payment of insurance amount, certain special features must be looked into. In a way, this is a contract of insurance between the respondents, i.e., the State of Maharashtra, Union of India and G.I.C. on one hand; and the farmers growing specified crops in the notified areas, who have taken loans from the banks or the Primary Co-operative Societies, on the other. The normal principle regarding conclusion of the contract is laid down under section 7 of the Contract Act, which reads as follows : "7. In order to convert a proposal into a promise, the acceptance must,- (1) be absolute unqualified; (2) be expressed in some usual and reasonable manner, unless the proposal prescribes the manner in which it is to be accepted. If the proposal prescribes a manner in which it is to be accepted, and the acceptance is not made in such manner, the proposer, may, within a reasonable time after the acceptance is communicated to him, insist that his proposal shall be accepted in the prescribed manner, and not otherwise; but if he fails to do so, he accepts the acceptance." 31. So, if it is considered that there was a proposal of insurance from the respondents and the farmers had accepted that proposal by allowing to deduct from the loan amounts the amount of premium, then when the amount of premium was transmitted to the G.I.C. and the insurance certificates were issued by the G.I.C., the proposal was converted into promise and it became a concluded contract. Both the banks have filed on record the Insurance Certificate issued by the G.I.C., indicating that the amount of premium was accepted and the farmers were covered under the C.C.I.S. Once such a proposal is converted into promise, then it cannot be changed by any subsequent unilateral acts of either party. The terms of the contract must be considered as settled as per the proposal and acceptance. There was no condition that the loaning period should be from 1st April to 30th September for the kharif crops till the Insurance Certificates were issued by the G.I.C. The farmers, in ordinary course, as per the loaning period prescribed by the banks, applied for kharif loans for jowar and groundnut crops and they obtained the kharif loans. The banks deducted the amount of premium and forwarded the same to the G.I.C. in June/July 1986 and, thereafter, the Insurance Certificates were issued by the G.I.C. While issuing the Insurance Certificates, it was not communicated to the Banks that the Insurance Certificates were being issued only for those loans, which were advanced after 1st April, 1986. This circumstance also clearly indicates that the G.I.C. also was not aware about the so-called stand of the Union of India that the letter dated 18-11-1986 was issued only by way of clarification and it was already notified that the loan for kharif crop should be only during the period from 1st April to 30th September. If that had been the understanding in the conference held in July 1985, then the G.I.C. would definitely not have issued the Insurance Certificates for the loans which were advanced during the period from 1st January to 31st March, 1986. 32. If that had been the understanding in the conference held in July 1985, then the G.I.C. would definitely not have issued the Insurance Certificates for the loans which were advanced during the period from 1st January to 31st March, 1986. 32. Neither the G.I.C. refunded the amount of premium, which was deducted from the loans advanced during the period from 1st January to 31st March, 1986 immediately on receiving the necessary information from the banks, nor it communicated immediately to the banks that those farmers, who had taken loan during the period from 1st January to 31st March, 1986 were not covered under the C.C.I.S. This was done by the G.I.C. only in January 1987 under the letter dated 12-1-1987; and this has happened only because of the letter dated 18-11-1986. No doubt, it is now being pleaded that the amount of premium was refunded to the O.D.C.C. Bank under the letter dated 8th June, 1988, which is filed as Annexure "A" in Writ Petition No. 1055 of 1989. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in that writ petition has stated that the cheque was not encashed by the O.D.C.C. bank and the amount was thus not claimed by the O.D.C.C. Bank. 33. No doubt, mere retention of the amount of premium will not mean the acceptance of the contract of insurance. Some more action is required on the part of insurer to indicate that there was acceptance of the contract of insurance. In this case, there is not mere acceptance of amount of premium, but Insurance Certificates were also issued to the banks on the basis of the information supplied by the banks along with the payment of premium; and, therefore, in a way, the contract was concluded on the issuance of the Insurance Certificates. None of the respondents can now go back on those contracts. Those must be honoured as they were concluded. The letter dated 18-11-1986 cannot come for help of the respondents to deny their liability to pay the amount of insurance to the farmers, who had obtained loans during the period from 1st January to 31st March, 1986. 34. This matter can be looked at from another angle also. We have already pointed out that this is a special type of contract of insurance. 34. This matter can be looked at from another angle also. We have already pointed out that this is a special type of contract of insurance. No insurance plan was proposed by the G.I.C. or by any insurance company and in response to such a plan, no proposal had come from the farmers to have covered their crops under the plan proposed by the G.I.C. Here, the Central Government, with an intention to give special protection to the farmers, notified the C.C.I.S. The C.C.I.S. was to be made applicable in the notified area for the specified crops. Any farmer from the notified area taking loan for the specified crops from the particular financial institutes is automatically covered under the C.C.I.S. A special proposal from the farmer for he being given coverage under the scheme of insurance was not to be called. So, here, it cannot be said that the proposal had gone from the farmer to the respondents for contract of insurance. The assurer was not making the proposal. In a way, the insurer was also not making a proposal. The insurer had taken the responsibility to give the cover of insurance to the farmers who had taken the loans under the C.C.I.S. 35. The Apex Court in the matter of (Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba and others)1, reported in A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1014, has observed in paragraph 14 as under: ".......the general rule is that the contract of insurance will be concluded only when the party to whom an offer has been made accepts it unconditionally and communicates his acceptance to the person making the offer. Whether the final acceptance is that of the assured or insurers, however, depends simply on the way in which negotiations for an insurance have progressed......." 36. It means that it is not necessary that in every contract of insurance, the proposal has to come from the assurer and the insurer has to accept it unconditionally to convert it into a contract. The circumstances may be different and those will have to be considered to find out who is the proposer and who is the acceptor. It means that it is not necessary that in every contract of insurance, the proposal has to come from the assurer and the insurer has to accept it unconditionally to convert it into a contract. The circumstances may be different and those will have to be considered to find out who is the proposer and who is the acceptor. Here, the Union of India has notified the C.C.I.S. The State Government is the participant in the C.C.I.S. The G.I.C. is appointed as an agent of the Union of India to manage the C.C.I.S. The important conditions of the C.C.I.S. with which the farmers are concerned are that they must be from the notified area, they have to take kharif crop loan or rabi crop loan for the specified crops; and they have to pay the premium from the loan amount through the bank or the Primary Co-operative Societies, from whom the loan is taken by them. When all these things have taken place, if there is failure of crop, then as per the formula prescribed under the C.C.I.S, the farmer is entitled to get the amount of insurance. So, here, it will be the Union of India and the State of Maharashtra proposers and the acceptance is that from the farmers, as soon as they take the loans and authorise the banks or the Primary Co-operative Societies to deduct from the loan amount the amount of premium. The payment of premium by the bank to the G.I.C. along with the statement, making clear the details regarding the names of the farmers, the amount of loan, the crop for which the loan is taken, etc., are all ministerial acts, being done by the bank, as common agent, as described above. The G.I.C., on its part, as an agent of the Central Government, has to carry out the further ministerial acts of accepting the amount of premium and issuing the insurance certificates mentioning the threshold yield of the crops, for which the insurance is given in the prescribed formula. The parties are automatically bound under the C.C.I.S. by advancing the loans to the farmers for the specified crops. So, the time when the loan is taken by the farmers is the time when the contract of insurance is concluded and, therefore, this is a special type of contract of insurance. 37. The parties are automatically bound under the C.C.I.S. by advancing the loans to the farmers for the specified crops. So, the time when the loan is taken by the farmers is the time when the contract of insurance is concluded and, therefore, this is a special type of contract of insurance. 37. The terms and conditions, which were prevailing at the time of advancing the loans, would be the only terms and conditions binding on the parties. The condition that loan must be taken within a specified period had to be made known to the farmers well in advance, so that, they could have acted accordingly. However, here, no such intimation was given either to the banks or to the Primary Co-operative Societies or to the farmers that for kharif crop, they have to take loan from 1st April to 30th September. The farmers took the loan for kharif crop of 1986-1987 from January 1986 onwards, as per the loan programme of the D.C.C. Banks. 38. Here, one more circumstance to be noted is that the L.D.C.C. Bank was allowed to advance kharif loans from 15-1-1986 by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd., as per the letter dated 25th January, 1986 produced on record by the petitioner L.D.C.C. Bank. This circumstance also indicates that not even the Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd., was aware that the loaning period form kharif crop was from April to September. If that had been the position, the Apex Bank would not have granted permission to the D.C.C. Bank to advance kharif loans from 15th January, 1986 onwards. The farmers, in ordinary course, obtained the kharif loan for jowar and groundnut crops during the period form 1st January to 31st March, 1986, not knowing that, ultimately, they will not be recognised as the farmers covered under the C.C.I.S. The Central Government, by suddenly issuing the letter dated 18-11-1986, have left them high and dry. 39. The very spirit behind the C.C.I.S. is lost by such an action on the part of the Central Government. No doubt, by reviewing the C.C.I.S., the Central Government can modify the C.C.I.S. It is also necessary to have some discipline with respect to the loaning period. It is also correct to see that the farmers use the amount of loan only for cultivation of a particular crop and not for any other purpose. No doubt, by reviewing the C.C.I.S., the Central Government can modify the C.C.I.S. It is also necessary to have some discipline with respect to the loaning period. It is also correct to see that the farmers use the amount of loan only for cultivation of a particular crop and not for any other purpose. The loan should be given only when it is really required. All these things could have been achieved, if the loaning period had been prescribed in the C.C.I.S., which was notified in May/June, 1985. At that time, probably, it was not apprehended that the loans would be given by changing the dates of kharif season from time to time. But, for this mistake on the part of the respondents, the farmers, who had obtained the loan bona fide, cannot be deprived of the benefits of the C.C.I.S. It is not at all a case made out by the respondents that the farmers, who had obtained loan from the Banks during the period from 1st January to 31st March, 1986 had not utilised that amount for growing jowar or groundnut crops, for which the loans were taken. If there is any such case, then definitely, such farmer would not be entitled to the amount of insurance. That will be an individual case. 40. So, in view of all this, we hold that the farmers, who had obtained loan for kharif jowar and groundnut crops from Latur and Osmanabad Districts for the kharif season of 1986-1987 during the period from 1st January, 1986 to 31st March, 1986 from the Latur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and the Osmanabad District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., through the Primary Co-operative Societies of their villages, are entitled to receive the amount of insurance, like the amount of insurance, which is paid to the farmers, who had taken the loan for the said crops during the said season during the period from 1st April, 1986 to 30th September, 1986. The respondents, therefore, are directed to ascertain the amount payable to each of such farmer and to pay the same to him. 41. The D.C.C. Banks have made it clear that all the farmers, who had obtained such loans from January 1986 to March 1986, have repaid the loan with interest. The respondents, therefore, are directed to ascertain the amount payable to each of such farmer and to pay the same to him. 41. The D.C.C. Banks have made it clear that all the farmers, who had obtained such loans from January 1986 to March 1986, have repaid the loan with interest. If the farmers had received the amount of insurance from the respondents in time, they would not have repaid the loan and the interest thereon, but the amount of loan with interest would have been satisfied from the amount of insurance. Considering this circumstance, we direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum on the amount of insurance payable to each of such farmer from the date on which the farmer repaid the loan to the Bank or the Primary Co-operative Society till the date of payment of amount of insurance to the farmer. 42. Considering all these circumstances and the necessity of payment of amount of insurance to the farmers properly and quickly, the Collectors of Osmanabad and Latur are directed to supervise the payment of insurance amount to the farmers by the G.I.C. The petitioner banks, as well as the petitioner Primary Co-operative Societies, are directed to assist the respective Collectors by giving the necessary details with respect to the names of the farmers, the date of repayment of loan by the farmers, etc. 43. In any case, if any farmer has yet not repaid the loan, the amount of loan, together with interest accrued thereon, be paid to the concerned D.C.C. Bank by the G.I.C. towards the settlement of loan taken by such farmer. 44. In ordinary course, the respondents ought to have come forward to help the poor farmers, who had suffered the loss due to failure of the crops. Instead of banking on technicalities, that too which were not clarified in advance, by taking into consideration the spirit of the C.C.I.S., the respondents should have paid the amount of insurance to the farmers. The two D.C.C. Banks and the Primary Co-operative Societies had to file these writ petitions to safeguard the interests of the farmers and, therefore, we hold that the two D.C.C. Banks and the Primary Co-operative Societies, who have filed these writ petitions, are entitled to get costs. 45. Rule in each of these writ petitions made absolute accordingly with costs. Order accordingly. -----