ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent Nos.3 and 4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 though served, have not entered appearance. 2. A writ petition was filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for direction to the respondents therein to consider the recommendations of the District Co-ordination Committee and re-determine the threshold yield on the basis of average yield of previous three of fair cropping years. The Central Government introduced a country wide Crop Insurance Scheme commencing from Kharif 1985 with a view to provide financial support to the farmers in the event of a crop failure due to drought, floods etc. and to restore credit eligibility of the farmers after a crop failure for the next crop season and to support and stimulate protection of cereals, pulses and oilseeds. 3. Vide judgment dated 31st August, 2005, the High Court of Karnataka disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:- "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through their pleadings and the record we are clearly of the view that the issues pertaining to the changes/modifications, if any, to be made in the Scheme in the light of the recommendations of the Joint Group are matters exclusively for the Government of India to decide and this court in the very nature of things cannot examine those issues. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondent No.1 to examine the recommendations made by the Joint Group in regard to the improvements suggested in the Scheme and take a final decision as expeditiously as possible but not later than December 31, 2005 so that the difficulties that are being faced by the farmers throughout the country could be redressed." 4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed C.C.C. No.518 of 2006 complaining of non-implementation of the directions issued in Writ Petition No.10517 of 2005. The main plea of the respondents was that no final decision was taken by the respondents in terms of the direction issued in the writ petition. 5. A response was filed to the contempt petition by the respondents in which it was categorically stated that a decision, in fact, was taken by which it was considered that no changes/modifications in the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) are required. 5. A response was filed to the contempt petition by the respondents in which it was categorically stated that a decision, in fact, was taken by which it was considered that no changes/modifications in the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) are required. It was further stated by the respondents that the scheme is of national importance which is applicable to the entire country and the interests of the farmers who are the ultimate beneficiaries was taken into account to arrive at a conclusion that no changes/modifications are required in NAIS. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein submits that even after the impugned order was passed on 23rd March, 2007, periodic reviews were conducted and schemes were formulated which have a bearing on the subject matter. He also submits that, at present, there is a scheme existing which pertains to the financial support to be given to the farmers in case of crop failiure due to drought and floods etc. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and upon perusing the material on record, we find that no prima facie case is made out to proceed against the appellant for committing contempt of the court for not implementing the directions issued on 23 rd March, 2007 in C.C.C. No.518 of 2006. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside.