Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 483 (KAR)

THAYAMMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2007-08-06

N.K.PATIL

body2007
ORDER N. K. Patil, J. Petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned communication dated 12th May, 2006 bearing No. APMC (HUNSUR)/010/2006-07 issued by fourth respondent-Secretary, Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Hunsur, Mysore District and the order dated 5th/8th August, 2006 bearing No. AMB. Kalyana 4847-49/2006-07 passed by second respondent-the Principal Managing Director, Karnataka State Agricultural Marketing Board, Bangalore, vide Annexures-A and B, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents 2 and 4 to pay the compensation to the petitioner under the ‘Raita Sanjeevini Insurance Scheme. 2. The petitioner herein claims that, her husband late Sri Nage Gowda died due to electrocution while fixing the electric motor in the land on 25th March, 2005. Therefore, petitioner has filed necessary application before the fourth respondent claiming compensation under ‘Raita Sanjeevini Insurance Scheme’ (hereinafter referred as ‘Scheme for short). Along with the said application, she has also produced necessary documents including the post-mortem report issued by the Competent Authority of the General Hospital, Hunsur to establish that, her late husband has died due to electrocution. Instead of considering her application, as provided under the ‘Scheme’, referred above, her request has been rejected stating that, her claim does not come under Rule 3(2) of the ‘Scheme’ by the communication of the fourth respondent dated 12th May, 2006 vide Annexure-A. Immediately thereafter petitioner has resubmitted her request for reviewing the said claim through the second respondent before the second respondent on 15th May, 2006 and the said request made by the petitioner has also been rejected by the second respondent on 5th/8th August, 2006 vide Annexure-B. Being aggrieved by the impugned communication and the order vide Annexures-A and B respectively, referred above issued and passed by respondents 4 and 2 respectively, petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs. 3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for respondents. 4. After careful perusal of the ‘Raita Sanjeevini Insurance Scheme’ produced as Annexure-D to the writ petition filed by petitioner, including the impugned communication’ and the order issued and passed by respondents 4 and 2 respectively, as referred above, it emerge that, petitioner’s husband being a rustic villager unfortunately has died due to electrocution and petitioner has lost her husband. 4. After careful perusal of the ‘Raita Sanjeevini Insurance Scheme’ produced as Annexure-D to the writ petition filed by petitioner, including the impugned communication’ and the order issued and passed by respondents 4 and 2 respectively, as referred above, it emerge that, petitioner’s husband being a rustic villager unfortunately has died due to electrocution and petitioner has lost her husband. The said fact has been certified by the jurisdictional doctor at the time of conducting post-mortem examination and he has submitted the post-mortem report. Accordingly, petitioner has filed her claim requesting the Competent Authority to extend the benefit under the said ‘Scheme’ as she is entitled for the same. The said request has been rejected without due consideration as envisaged under the relevant provisions of the said Scheme. It can be seen from the said ‘Scheme’ which is issued and published by the Competent Authority and produced at Annexure-D to the writ petition filed by petitioner that, Condition 2 sub-clause (e) fully applies to the facts of the case of petitioner herein. Under the said proviso, it can be seen that, a farmer’s family is entitled to avail the benefit under the Scheme if the farmer has died during the course of digging other equipments. This has not been looked into nor considered by both the authorities and the request of the petitioner has been rejected in a mechanical manner. Therefore, the reasons assigned by respondents 2 and 4 for rejecting the request of petitioner under the ‘Scheme’ cannot be sustained. Hence, the impugned communication and the order issued and passed by both the authorities are liable to be set aside. 5 Yet another reason as to why the impugned communication and the order issued and passed by respondents 4 and 2 vide Annexures-A and B respectively are liable to be set aside is, in the light of the order passed by this Court in identical matter in the case of Smt. Sumathi v State of Karnataka and Othersl. Therefore, on the basis of the said order passed by this Court and for the reasons stated therein, the impugned communication and order issued and passed by respondents 4 and 2 respectively vide Annexures-A and B cannot be sustained. 6. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the writ petition filed by petitioner is disposed of as follows. 6. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the writ petition filed by petitioner is disposed of as follows. (I) The writ petition filed by petitioner is allowed in part; (ID The impugned communication dated 12th May, 2006 bearing No. APMC (Hunsur)/010/2006-07 issued by fourth respondent-Secretary, Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Hunsur, Mysore District and the order dated 5th/8th August, 2006 bearing No. AMB. Kalyana 4847-49/2006-07 passed by second respondent-the Principal Managing Director, Karnataka State Agricultural Marketing Board, Bangalore, vide Annexures-A and B respectively are hereby set aside, and the matter stands remitted back to respondents 1 and 2 herein to reconsider the matter afresh and to pass appropriate order in strict compliance of the ‘Raita Sanjeevini Insurance Scheme’ with specific reference to the aforesaid provision and also in the light of the direction issued by this Court in similar matter in the case of Smt. Sumathi v State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. No. 40908 of 2002, disposed of on 25th March, 2004, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With these observations, the writ petition filed by petitioner is disposed of.