Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1589 (PNJ)

Gurcharan Singh v. State Of Punjab

2003-11-20

S.S.GREWAL, S.S.NIJJAR

body2003
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. Thirty three farmers belonging to the District Fatehgarh Sahib and District Patiala have filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation of the loss suffered by them on account of sale of Paddy below the Minimum Support Price (MSP) for the Paddy which was purchased by the State of Punjab between 21.9.2000 to 14.10.2000. 2. In the petition, it has been averred that the State of Punjab announced the decision of payment of compensation @62% of the loss caused to the farmers due to the difference between the Minimum Support Price and the rate at which the Paddy was actually purchased. The District Food and Supplies Department, Amloh District Fatehgarh Sahib prepared the Disbursement Roll of compensation to be paid to the farmers and sent it to Director Food and Civil Supplies, Punjab. In this list, the farmers of District Fatehgarh Sahib were included. A large number of farmers including some farmers from District Fatehgarh Sahib, have been paid the compensation in June/July, 2001. Till date, the petitioners have not been paid the compensation amount, The petitioners, therefore, complain that the action of the respondents is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In paragraph 3 of the petition, the petitioners have given details of the Paddy sold between 21.9.2000 to 14.10.2000 through Commission Agents (Artias) M/s Sohan Lal Company, Amloh, M/s Sohan Lal Surjit Singh, Amloh and M/s Tarsen Chand Harbans Lal, Amloh. The details of the J form Nos are as follows:- "1523/8.10.2000, 1515/8-10-2000, 1515/8.10.2000, 1514/8.10.2000, 1513/8.10.2000, 1511/8.10.2000, 1510/8.10.2000, 1512/8,10.2000, 1529/9.10,2000, I547/10.10.2K, 1528/9.10.2000, 1525/9.10.2000, 1532/9.10.2000, 1527/9.10.2000, 1550/9/10.2K, 1526/9.10.2000, 1524/9.10.2000, 1533/9.10,2000, 1550/10.10.2K, 1549/10.10.2000, 1548/10.10.2000, 2111/23.9.2000, 564/29.9.2000, 594/3.10.2000, 606/7.10.2000, 607/7.10.2000, 609/7.10.2000, 611/7.10.2000, 612/7.10.2000, 550/21.9.2000, 613/9.10.2000, 617/10.10.2000, 627/11.10.2000, 619/10.10.2000, 614/9.10.2000, 615/9.10.2000, 618/10.10.2000, 608/7.10.2000, 626/11.10.2000, 631/11.10.2000." 3. It is further stated that the compensation was to be paid by the Central Government to the State Government and, therefore, the State Government had to disburse the amount to the farmers through the Department of Food and Civil Supplies in accordance with the Scheme. It is further stated that the compensation was to be paid by the Central Government to the State Government and, therefore, the State Government had to disburse the amount to the farmers through the Department of Food and Civil Supplies in accordance with the Scheme. The Department of Civil Supplies Amloh District Fatehgarh Sahib prepared disbursement roll of compensation payable to the farmers, The aforesaid roll was prepared on the basis of the J forms which had been duly verified by the Inspector Food and Supplies as per PR-I Register. The District Magistrate, Amloh (respondent No. 5) received a total amount of Rs. 46,16,556/- for disbursement through Civil Supplies Amloh against the requirement of Rs. 49,42,722/- which was payable to the farmers as stated earlier. Most of the farmers have been paid, but for the reasons to be noticed a little later, petitioners have not been made payment of the compensation due which is assessed at Rs. 2,62,639/-, the petitioners submitted two representations (Annexures P2 and P3) for disbursement of the compensation. It is further stated that a sum of Rs. 4,02 lakh was transferred from Amritsar District to district Fatehgarh Sahib. The petitioners further states that inspite of funds being available, they have deliberately been denied the compensation amount. 4. A written statement has been filed by the respondents, A preliminary objection has been taken, The respondents have admitted that there was a scheme for compensation of the farmers as stated by the petitioners. This policy was issued on 10.6,2001, The policy provided that the disbursement compensation would be made by the Deputy Commissioner on whose disposal the calculated amount of the each District will be placed, (Disbursement Committees were ordered to be formed under the Chairmanship of concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate consisting of following members;- 1, B.D.P.O. 2. Chairman concerned market Committee. 3. Two representatives of the farmers 4. A representative of Arhtia (Commission Agent) of purchase centre . 5. Food and Supplies Officer/Asstt. Food & Supplies Officer-Member Secretary." 5. The disbursement was to be made on the basis of the entries in PR-1, register of purchase centre and submission of J forms. The entire amount was to be distributed within a period of 15 days and the amount of Rs. 71,72,000/- was placed at the disposal of the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib. The entire amount was disbursed to the farmers who claimed amount from Government though Arhitias. The entire amount was to be distributed within a period of 15 days and the amount of Rs. 71,72,000/- was placed at the disposal of the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib. The entire amount was disbursed to the farmers who claimed amount from Government though Arhitias. The present petitioners did not present their claim within time and the entire funds placed at the disposal of the Deputy Commissioner have been exhausted. According to the respondents, the petitioners have made a belated claim of Rs. 2,62,639/- as compensation on paddy when the accounts have been closed. Government of India was required to foot 50% of the bill for compensation paid to farmers which has already been received. Therefore, now no further amount can be disbursed as the same will not be reimbursed by the Government of India. 6. Mr. Sran has very, emphatically, pointed out to this Court, at this stage, that a sum of Rs. 5839.47 cannot be paid to petitioner No. 17 as his claim is not reported in PR-1 register of the respondent-department. This emphatic statement, at this stage, leads to an irresistible conclusion that claim of every other petitioner is included in the relevant register as no such plea has been raised against their claims. 7. The petitioners have filed replication. In the replication, it is emphatically stated that the petitioners demanded payment of compensation along with others on the date when the amount was disbursed to the other farmers by one Mahinder Singh, Inspector, Food and Supplies Amloh and D.F.S.O.-Sarvjit Singh. These petitioners were not paid as the Amloh Circle was short of funds, The disbursement roll was signed by Mahinder Singh, Inspector, Food and Supplies, Amloh and by DFSO Sarvjit Singh. This Inspector also prepared details of shortage of funds wherein he mentioned that there is shortage of Rs. 2,62,639/-. He also noticed that the balance amount of Rs. 14,473/- is still lying and the total amount required is Rs. 2,48,166/-. Copies of the detail have been attached with the replication as Annexure P6 which bears the signatures of the Inspector, Food and Supplies and District Food and Supplies Officer. Annexure P7 gives details with regard to 41 farmers who have not been disbursed a sum of Rs. 2,62,639.39. The names of the commission Agents through whom the Paddy was claimed are also mentioned. Annexure P7 gives details with regard to 41 farmers who have not been disbursed a sum of Rs. 2,62,639.39. The names of the commission Agents through whom the Paddy was claimed are also mentioned. With regard to petitioner No. 17, it has been categorically stated that his claim is mentioned in the disbursement roll at serial No. 22 and the less amount paid to him is Rs. 3892.85. His claim comes to Rs. 2413,56. His sale is entered in PR-1 register at serial No. 51/198/10-10-2000. This petitioner has been denied compensation merely because of a typographical error and the name of his father was wrongly entered. The respondents have filed rejoinder. It has been reiterated that the staff of the respondent-department, Food and Supplies, was duty bound to prepare the roll. The amount which was not disbursed to the farmers as compensation has been directed to be deposited in the Government exchequer under major head "4408 capital outlay." The Government has decided from now onwards the issue of disbursement of compensation be not opened and the un-dis-bursed amount lying in the Circle Office may be deposited in the treasury immediately under major head "4408 Capital Outlay". Since in Fatehgarh Sahib District amount of Rs. 4.02 lakh was received from Amritsar District but due to closure of Scheme, the said amount was redeposited in the treasury without disbursing the same to the farmers who had claimed the compensation late. 8. Mr. Punia submitted that the aforesaid averments make it abundantly clear that the compensation due to the petitioners has been withheld by the State Government arbitrarily. He claims that the action of the respondent amounts to "unjust enrichment" at the expense of the farmers. He further submits that the State of Punjab has confiscated the amount due to the petitioner without any reason, arbitrarily and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. Mr. Sran, on the other hand, submits that the respondents can not release the compensation to the petitioner as the scheme has been closed and the State of Punjab will not get any further reimbursement from the Central Government. As noticed earlier, learned counsel made a particular reference to the claim of petitioner No. 17. 10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The scheme made by the Central Government was voluntary in nature. As noticed earlier, learned counsel made a particular reference to the claim of petitioner No. 17. 10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The scheme made by the Central Government was voluntary in nature. The scheme was formulated to fulfil a laudable Aim. The poor farmers were sought to be compensated for the losses suffered by them due to circumstances beyond their control. All necessary formalities had been observed. There is sufficient material on the record to show that the petitioners had made their applications for compensation within the stipulated period. There is evidence on record to show that even the claim of petitioner No. 17 was made well within time. There is also evidence on the record to show that funds have actually been received by the State of Punjab from the Central Government. There is also material on record to show that the amount which was due to the petitioners was actually transferred from Amritsar District to Fatchgarh Sahib District. Now, the State of Punjab deposited the aforesaid amount in the Government treasury under major heard 4408 Capital Outlay" on the ground that the accounts have been closed. We are of the considered opinion that the approach adopted by the State of Punjab is not only arbitrary, inhumane but contrary to the very scheme which was formulated to help poor, farmers to over come the losses suffered by them. We arc of the considered opinion, that the action of the respondents in not disbursing the compensation to the petitioners is unsustainable on any of the grounds which have been put forward by he respondents in the written statement and the rejoinder. Farmers similarly situated to the petitioners were disbursed the compensation on the basis of the claims which were made at the same time when the petitioners had made a claim. Merely because there was a shortage of funds, would not be a justification to treat the petitioners differently from the other farmers. We hold that the action of the State is wholly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Merely because there was a shortage of funds, would not be a justification to treat the petitioners differently from the other farmers. We hold that the action of the State is wholly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to disburse the amount which has been transferred to the treasury under major head "4409 Capital Outlay" in accordance with the claims which had been put forward by the petitioner including the claim made by petitioner No. 17. Let the amounts be paid within a period of one month of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioners are also held entitled to interest at the rate of 8% from the date when the payment was due till the amount is paid. 12. Petition is allowed with Rs. 10000/- as costs. Copies of this order be made available to the counsel for the parties duly authenticated by the. Bench Secretary so that there is no further excuse for not making payment of the compensation to the farmers.