Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1291 (PAT)

Ran Vijay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar

2019-09-16

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD

body2019
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in all these three writ applications as well as learned counsel for National Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited and learned counsel for the Motihari Central Cooperative Bank Limited as also the State. 2. Petitioners in all these three writ applications are looking for a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to pay their claims on account of crop insurance for the Rabi crop pertaining to the year 2008-09 and Kharif crop insurance claim for the year 2009. It is the prayer of the petitioners that their cases should also be considered in terms of the order dated 11.04.2016 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17831 of 2015 which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 1477 of 2016. 3. The petitioners in first two writ applications are from Chiraiya Block in the district of East Champaran whereas the petitioners in the third writ application are from Kesariya Block of the same district. 4. Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that on facts all these three writ applications are identical, thus, they may be disposed of by a common order. Accordingly this Court is disposing of all the three writ applications by this common order. 5. The petitioners are members of the different Primary Agriculture Credit Society (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PACS’) affiliated to District Central Bank Limited, Motihari and they are the non-loanee members of their respective ‘PACS’. 6. Under the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Scheme’) the small and marginal farmers have been provided the benefits of crop insurance. The Scheme provides the benefit of subsidy in the premium. According to the facts stated in the writ application, a farmer having two hectares (5 acres) or less are categorized as small farmers and a farmer having one hectare or less (2.5 acres) are categorized as marginal farmers. They would get the benefit of 10% of the premium amount by way of subsidy. The claim on account of crop insurance has to be borne in equal proportion by the Central Government and the State Government. So far as the Insurance Company is concerned, it is only an implementing agency to disburse the claim on being satisfied with its genuineness. 7. The claim on account of crop insurance has to be borne in equal proportion by the Central Government and the State Government. So far as the Insurance Company is concerned, it is only an implementing agency to disburse the claim on being satisfied with its genuineness. 7. While it is the case of the petitioners that their crops were duly insured against the premium paid by them to the Central Cooperative Bank and they are entitled to get the benefit of the crop insurance, the Insurance Company has taken a stand that there being huge irregularities in the matter of effecting crop insurance in the district of East Champaran, the State Government had constituted a Task Force to look into the irregularities and the said Task Force having examined the claim of insurance by the non-loanee farmers of the district submitted a report enlisting the name of the non-loanee farmers whose claims were not acceptable. It is, thus, the stand of the Insurance Company that once the name of these petitioners find place in the report submitted by the Task Force wherein their claims have been found not acceptable, the petitioners having not challenged the said report of the Task Force which was submitted as back as on 01.06.2012 cannot contend before this Court that their claims are still liable to be paid. 8. It is the contention of Mr. Rajan Sahay, learned counsel representing the Insurance Company that so far as reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment rendered by this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 17831 of 2015 is concerned, the same is totally misplaced inasmuch as every case has to be decided only on its own facts and the judgment of the Court cannot be cited like euclid's theorem because the slightest change in the facts of the case would make a sea difference in the judgment of the Court. Reliance in this regard has been made on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And Anr. vs. N.R. Vairamani & Others reported in 2004 (8) SCC 579 . 9. Reliance in this regard has been made on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And Anr. vs. N.R. Vairamani & Others reported in 2004 (8) SCC 579 . 9. It is submitted that in C.W.J.C. No. 17831 of 2015, there were only five petitioners who had shown to the learned writ court from the materials placed on the record particularly the Land Possession Certificate and other documents that the findings recorded in their respect in the report of the Task Force were not correct. Out of five petitioners, the four had been able to establish their claims with the materials placed on the record, therefore, their cases were considered by the learned writ court but the case of one of the petitioners was still rejected because he had not been able to substantiate his claim. It is submitted that in the present case there is neither any challenge to the report of the Task Force nor any pleading is available on the record mush less any document to support the claim of the petitioners and there being altogether 738 farmers who have moved this Court at this belated stage, it may, perhaps, not be possible for this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to take upon itself an exercise to record a finding of fact contrary to the report of the Task Force and then to allow the writ application. It is submitted that some more farmers are in waiting and the writ applications have been presented which has yet not been registered. 10. Learned counsel submits that there is one more reason not to accept this writ application at this stage and that would be the delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in moving this Court for the relief prayed in the writ application. It is submitted that the delay is to be seen in the context in which the writ application has been filed and the reliefs have been prayed. In a given case the slightest of delay of few days may prove fatal to the petitioners and the relief may be refused. 11. It is submitted that the delay is to be seen in the context in which the writ application has been filed and the reliefs have been prayed. In a given case the slightest of delay of few days may prove fatal to the petitioners and the relief may be refused. 11. In the present case, the admitted fact is that the Task Force had submitted it’s report on 01.06.2012 and thereafter the Central Cooperative Bank had submitted the revised claims on different occasions, copies of which are enclosed as Annexure ‘R/4’ series to the counter affidavit of the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company has paid all those claims about which there was no doubt in the Task Force report. It is submitted that presently in respect of the Rabi crop insurance of the year 2008-09 and the Kharif crop insurance claim of 2008-09, no claim is pending with the Insurance Company. It is further submitted that this writ application has been preferred six years after the report of the Task Force that too without challenging the same. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the State and the Bank, this Court is of the considered opinion that there being a report of the Task Force constituted by the State Government which has found the claim of the petitioners not acceptable and not genuine, unless the report of the Task Force is set aside, no relief may be granted to the petitioners. In the writ applications, there is no challenge to the report of the Task Force. There is also no pleading in the writ application even to prima facie demonstrate that the findings of the Task Force are perversed and contrary to the materials available on the record. There being no foundation of the facts in the writ applications to demonstrate that the Task Force report is otherwise liable to be set aside, this Court would not be able to mould the relief as it is well settled that for moulding the relief there should be at least the foundation of facts indicating towards the illegality in the decision making process. In the present case, the petitioners have chosen not to enclose even prima-facie documents which were available before the learned writ court in C.W.J.C.No. 17831 of 2015 and, therefore, the Court cannot proceed to record even a prima-facie view in the matter. What is relevant to take note of with respect to the background in which the Task Force was constituted may be found in the letter no. 1300 dated 27.03.2012 written by the Joint Secretary, Department of Cooperative, Government of Bihar to all the District Magistrates of East Champaran (Motihari), West Champaran (Bettiah), Siwan and Muzaffarpur. What is relevant to take note of with respect to the background in which the Task Force was constituted may be found in the letter no. 1300 dated 27.03.2012 written by the Joint Secretary, Department of Cooperative, Government of Bihar to all the District Magistrates of East Champaran (Motihari), West Champaran (Bettiah), Siwan and Muzaffarpur. The contents of the same are extracted hereinunder for ready reference: – ^^fcgkj ljdkj lgdkfjrk foHkkx i=kad 1300@iVuk] fnukad 27-03-12 izs"kd] jkekJ; dqekj] ljdkj ds la;qDr lfpoA lsok esa] ftyk inkfèkdkjh] iwohZ pEikj.k ¼eksfrgkjh½@if'peh pEikj.k ¼csfr;k½@floku ,oa eqtÝQjiqjA fo"k; % jk"Vªh; Ñf"k chek ;kstuk ds rgr jch 2008&09 ,oa [kjhQ 2009 ekSle esa dsUnzh; lgdkjh cSad fyñ ,oa mlls lEc) iSDlksa }kjk chfer xSj Í.kh Ñ"kdksa ds chek ds Ñ"kdokj lR;kiu izfrosnu ij vko';d ekxZ&n'kZu ds lacaèk esaA egk'k;] funs'kkuqlkj mi;qZDr fo"k; ds lacaèk esa lwfpr djuk gS fd jk"Vªh; Ñf"k chek ;kstuk ds rgr~ jch 2008&09 ,oa [kjhQ 2009 ekSle esa dsUnzh; lgdkjh cSad fyñ rFkk muls lEc) iSDlksa }kjk fd;s x;s xSj Í.kh Ñ"kdksa ds chek dk Ñ"kdokj lR;kiu ds Øe esa dqN fcUnqvksa ij ekxZn'kZu dh vis{kk dh x;h Fkh] ftldk fujkdj.k djrs gq, foHkkxh; i=kad 5409 fnukad 09-12-11 }kjk ekxZn'kZu izsf"kr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk fuEukafdr fcUnqvksa ij vko';d ekxZn'kZu jkT; ljdkj ds le{k fopkjkèkhu Fkk ;Fkk%& ¼d½ vfèkd Hkwfe j[krs gq, y?kq ,oa lhekar Ñ"kd ds :i esa chek djukA ¼[k½ de Hkwfe dk ,y-ih-lh- j[krs gq, vfèkd Hkwfe dk chek djkukA ¼x½ ,y-ih-lh- dk jdok] Hkw&yxku jlhn ds jdok ls de gksus ij chek djkukA mi;qZDr fcUnqvksa ij fofèk foHkkx dh fofèk jk; izkIr dh xbZ gSA fofèk foHkkx] fcgkj ls izkIr ijke'kZ ds vkyksd esa dafMdk ^d* ,oa ^[k* Js.kh ds Ñ"kdksa dks {kfriwfrZ jkf'k vuqekU; ugha gksaxhA mDr Js.kh ds xSj Í.kh Ñ"kdksa }kjk Qly chek djkus esa Ny@diV@csbZekuh dk lgkjk ysdj ljdkj ls {kfriwfrZ jkf'k izkIr djus dk vlQy iz;kl fd;k x;k gS rFkk cM+s Hkw&èkkjh y?kq ,oa lhekar Ñ"kd ds :i esa chek djkdj izhfe;e dh jkf'k esa 10-00 izfr'kr dk NwV izkIr fd;s gSa] tks ljdkjh èku dk Li"V nq:i;ksx gSA bl Js.kh ds Ñ"kdksa ds fo:) Hkkjrh; n.M foèkku dh lqlaxr èkkjkvksa ds rgr~ dkjZokbZ fd;k tkuk pkfg,A vr% mDr nksuksa Js.kh ds Ñ"kdksa ds chek esa layXu nks"kh Ñ"kd] iSDl vè;{k rFkk cSad dfeZ;ksa ds fo:) mÙkjnkf;Ro dk fuèkkZj.k djrs gq, mudk foLr`r uke@firk dk uke] i=kpkj dk irk@chek djkus okys iSDl dk uke] i=kpkj ds irk] vkfn dh foLr`r lwph rS;kj dj okafNr dkuwuh@foHkkxh; dkjZokbZ ds fy, VkLd QkslZ esa fu.kZ; fy;k tk; rFkk vuq'kalk ds lkFk foHkkx dks lwfpr djus dk d"V fd;k tk; rkfd bl fufeÙk vxzsrj dkjZokbZ dh tk ldsA Øekad ^x* Js.kh ds xSj Í.kh Ñ"kd tks chek djkus ds Øe esa ,yihlh ds cnys Hkw&yxku jlhn tek fd;s gSa rFkk lR;kiu ds le; ,yihlh tek fd;s gSa] ,oa ,yihlh esa vafdr jdok] Hkw&yxku jlhn dh jdok ls de gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa ,yihlh esa vafdr jdok ds vkèkkj ij chfer jkf'k dk fuèkkZj.k djrs gq, mUgsa {kfriwfrZ jkf'k vuqekU; gksxh] c'kÙksZ mDr Js.kh ds xSj Í.kh Ñ"kd] chek djkus dh vU; lHkh 'kÙkks± dk ikyu fd;s gksaA bl Øe esa ;g Hkh dguk gS fd lHkh lR;kiu dk;Z ekpZ] 2012 rd iw.kZ djrs gq, chek ds ;ksX; Ñ"kdksa gsrq vuqekU; {kfriwfrZ jkf'k dh fooj.kh] {ks=h; izcaèkd] ,xzhdYpj ba';ksjsal daiuh vkWQ bafM;k fyñ] iVuk dks miyCèk djkus dh Ñik djsa rkfd {kfriwfrZ Hkqxrku gsrq jkT;ka'k jkf'k daiuh dks foeqDr dh tk lds! fo'oklHkktu gñvñ ¼jkekJ; dqekj½ ljdkj ds la;qDr lfpo Kkikad 1300 @iVuk] fnukad 27-03-12 izfrfyfi % izcaèk funs'kd] dsUnzh; lgdkjh cSad fyñ] eqtÝQjiqj] floku] csfr;k ,oa eksfrgkjh@ftyk lgdkfjrk inkfèkdkjh] eqtÝQjiqj] floku] csfr;k ,oa eksfrgkjh dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dkjZokbZ gsrq izsf"krA gñvñ ljdkj ds la;qDr lfpoA Kkikad 1300@iVuk] fnukad 27-03-12 izfrfyfi % {ks=h; izcaèkd] ,xzhdYpj ba';ksjsUl daiuh vkWQ bafM;k fyñ izQstj jksM] iVuk dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dkjZokbZ gsrq izsf"krA gñvñ ljdkj ds la;qDr lfpoA Kkikad 1300@iVuk] fnukad 27-03-12 izfrfyfi % vk;qDr] frjgqr izeaMy] eqtÝQjiqj ,oa lkj.k ize.My] Nijk dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dkjZokbZ gsrq izsf"krA gñvñ ljdkj ds la;qDr lfpoA** 13. It is in the light of the aforesaid complaint and enquiry that the Task Force has submitted a report, this Court, therefore, finds itself in agreement with the submission of Mr. Sahay, learned counsel for the Insurance Company that this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not take upon itself an exercise of a fact finding Court that too at this belated stage when all remedies under common law have become barred by limitation for these petitioners. 14. For the reasons stated hereinabove, all these writ applications are dismissed.