JUDGMENT : [WP(C) Nos.23267/2023, 24835/2023, 25152/2023, 25410/2023, 25575/2023] The angst projected in these cases by the petitioners is deserving of swift reparatory action being ordered. 2. The petitioners in these cases – which have been heard together, adverting to the analogous factual circumstances pleaded and the similarity of the reliefs sought for – are farmers, from whom the Kerala Civil Supplies Corporation (‘Supplyco’), admittedly, had procured paddy, on certain specified conditions. 3. Apodictically, and as expressly conceded by Sri. Santhosh Peter – learned Standing Counsel for the ‘Supplyco’, as per the agreed terms between the parties relating to the procurement of paddy, all amounts due to the farmers, up to the extent of Rs.50,000/-, were to be paid immediately; while those exceeding the said figure, would be paid in two tranches:-namely, initially 28%, which will be credited directly into their accounts; and the balance, on the ‘Supplyco’ obtaining a loan, as per the instructions of the Government, from a designated Bank, under a tripartite agreement between them for such purpose. 4. The petitioners complain that even though procurement of paddy from them took place in April–May of this year, full amounts under the Procurement Scheme have not been yet disbursed to them; and that they are now being asked to go to various Banks to sign loan applications and security documents, before their claims are honoured. They say that this is unfortunate and uncharitable because they offered to supply paddy to ‘Supplyco’ on the specific assurances as afore given to them, and under the bonafide hope that the eligible amounts will be paid under the Procurement Scheme without delay; but that all this has been now belied by the subsequent conduct of the ‘Supplyco’ and the other stakeholders. They thus pray that ‘Supplyco’ be directed to pay them the eligible amounts within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 5. As I have already indited above, Sri. Santhosh Peter – learned Standing Counsel for ‘Supplyco’, conceded that, except 28% of the procurement price, qua those persons to whom more than Rs.50,000/-is to be paid, the balance is yet to be disbursed; but explained that this is because of certain administrative difficulties faced by the Bank which is now financing the scheme, under a tripartite agreement entered into between them, ‘Supplyco’ and the Government. He, however, submitted that sanction has already been obtained from the Bank for disbursement of eligible sums to the petitioners; and therefore, that if they are to approach them appropriately, same would be credited into their accounts directly; and that it is solely for this that they have been requested to execute necessary receipts. He alleged that it is this requirement, which is now being misinterpreted by the petitioners, to the effect that they are asked to sign loan applications and security documents; and added that they will not be burdened by any obligation to the Bank, to repay the amount to be paid to them. 6. The afore explanation now offered by Sri. Santhosh Peter certainly clears the air to some extent. 7. However, one must bear in mind that the petitioners are the farmers on account of whose effort alone, the Procurement Scheme was able to be worked. The produce obtained from them has been put into the public distribution system, under the aegis of the ‘Supplyco’, but they, admittedly, have not been favoured with full amounts until now. The explanation of the ‘Supplyco’ -as seen above is that, under the scheme, 28% of the amount has already been disbursed to each of the petitioners directly to their account; while the balance will be disbursed through the Bank, with whom they and the Government have entered into a tripartite loan agreement, to facilitate a loan facility in their name. 8. That said, it is unambiguously conceded -without any contest that substantial amounts are still due to the petitioners even as on date. 9. Surely, this is a very sorry state of affairs because, it is also admitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the ‘Supplyco’ – to a pointed question from this Court – that, as per the Procurement Scheme, the balance amounts ought to have reached the accounts of the petitioners and other farmers within 60 days of procurement. 10. In the afore perspective, the apprehension of the petitioners cannot seen to be untenable. They have been told, as some of them say, that they are to now approach the Bank and to execute certain documents, consequent to which alone, their balance amounts will be disbursed. 10. In the afore perspective, the apprehension of the petitioners cannot seen to be untenable. They have been told, as some of them say, that they are to now approach the Bank and to execute certain documents, consequent to which alone, their balance amounts will be disbursed. Obviously, they are justified in believing that they are now being forced and cornered into suffering a loan obligation with the Bank and that they may have to repay the amounts to it, as and when such a demand is to be made by them in due course. 11. However, since the learned Standing Counsel for the ‘Supplyco’ affirmatively undertakes that there will be no obligation of any kind created on the petitioners qua the Bank, but that it is only a convenience offered to them to approach it directly and obtain eligible sums, on execution of proper receipt – which will be then accounted only against the loan account of the ‘Supplyco’ – I am certain that the afore apprehension of the petitioners need not be harboured any further. 12. However, there is a corollary question as to if the petitioners should be burdened to go to the Bank and seek that the amounts be released to them, instead of the ‘Supplyco’ doing it, particularly because many of them, perhaps, are not used to the methods of the banking system fully. 13. There can be little doubt, as is fully admitted, that it is the contractual obligation of the ‘Supplyco’ to pay fully under the Paddy Procurement Scheme; and hence it is their liability to ensure that every petitioner, as also other farmers, are paid their full Procurement Consideration at the earliest, especially when the agreed time frame fixed for such purpose has concededly expired. 14. The petitioners cannot be put to any further prejudice, solely because the ‘Supplyco’ has not been able to garner resources to comply with their contractual commitments; nor can anything be attributed to them if the financing Bank causes any delay in grant of loan to the ‘Supplyco’ under the tripartite agreement between two of them and the Government. The shifting of any such responsibility onto the shoulders of the farmers is uncharitable and, in any case, wholly impermissible. The shifting of any such responsibility onto the shoulders of the farmers is uncharitable and, in any case, wholly impermissible. In the afore circumstances, I allow these Writ Petitions, directing the ‘Supplyco’ to ensure that all eligible amounts to the petitioners, after deducting the payments made to them earlier, are disbursed to them as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I, however, clarify that if the ‘Supplyco’ is to opine that it will be more convenient for the petitioners to go to the Bank at their instruction and receive money through direct credit to their account, on the strength of only a receipt for such, I leave them liberty to request the petitioners to do so. But if any of them finds it difficult or unable to do so – for any reason whatsoever – the ‘Supplyco’ will make sure that the payment is effected to them in terms of the afore directions. After I dictated this part of the judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioners, particularly Sri. Millu Dandapani, requested that these matters be not closed today, because there is every likelihood of the directions herein being not complied with. Though I do not propose to accede to this request, I deem it appropriate to order the Registry to place these matters before me for verification of compliance of the directions, on 31.10.2023; within which time, the ‘Supplyco’ will file an Action Taken Report.