JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner who claims himself to be a farmer and also President of Kullu Phalotpadak Mandal, Mahili Katrain, District Kullu has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow this writ petition; (b) A writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India be issued calling for record of the case and condition 2(a) of the Scheme Annexure P-1 and condition (5) in the Scheme Annexure P-5, making the insurance scheme compulsory for loanee Apple cultivators be set aside and quashed; (c) A writ of mandamus be issued against respondent Agriculture Insurance Company directing it to make payment of sum insured as per rate promised in condition No.6 of the scheme Annexure P-1 and arrears paid with interest @ prevalent Bank/Market rate. (d) Costs of this petition be awarded against respondent No.3 and respondent No.5 and (e) For such further and other orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.” 2. During the course of arguments Mr. Thakur learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his submission to only one ground, i.e., according to him Scheme Annexure P-1 is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed and set aside, as it creates an artificial classification between loanee farmers and non-loanee farmers, which classification as per him is violative under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. According to Mr. Thakur, farmer is a farmer be he a loanee farmers or non-loanee farmers and the classification which has been so created between the said two categories is not sustainable in law. 3. No other point was urged. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respective respondents and have also gone through the pleadings of the case. 5. In my considered view, there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Article 14 of the Constitution of India permits classification provided the classification is based on intelligible differentia and the intelligible differentia has some nexus with the object to be achieved. 6. A perusal of the Scheme demonstrates that the said Scheme has been framed for the purpose of implementation of Pilot Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS). Article 14 of the Constitution of India permits classification provided the classification is based on intelligible differentia and the intelligible differentia has some nexus with the object to be achieved. 6. A perusal of the Scheme demonstrates that the said Scheme has been framed for the purpose of implementation of Pilot Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS). A perusal of the Scheme further demonstrates that insurance of the crop has been made compulsory for those farmers who have obtained loans from various lending financial institutions, i.e., Bank branches, PACS etc., whereas the same has been made optional for non-loanee farmers, i.e., those farmers who have not taken any loan from lending financial institution. In my considered view, the classification which has been so made between these two categories is not an arbitrary classification. The classification so made is based on intelligible differentia as one group consists of loanee farmers, whereas the other group consists of non loanee farmers. This intelligible differentia has a nexus with the object, which object is that once a loanee farmer, i.e., a farmer who has obtained loan from lending financial institutions, i.e., Bank Branches, PACS etc. undertake compulsory insurance of their crop, not only their interest is protected but in the advent of the failure of the crop, the interest of the financial institutions from whom they have obtained the loans is also protected. The rationale for making crop insurance scheme compulsory for loanee farmers is that because such like farmers have obtained loans from financial institutions, therefore, compulsory insurance of their crop would obviously cover the risk of the farmer as well as the financial institutions in case of crop failure. On the other hand the same has not been made compulsory for a loanee farmer because such like farmer in the absence of having taken loan etc. from financial institutions is not liable to indemnify any such financial institutions. Therefore, from what I have held above not only the classification is based on an intelligible differentia the same also has a reasonable nexus with the object to be achieved and there is no illegality in the same. In view of the above, as there is no merit in the present petition, accordingly the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications if any also stand disposed of.