JUDGMENT : (Krishna S. Dixit, J.) : This Intra-Court appeal by the Insurer calls in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 02.05.2023 whereby first respondent’s W.P.No.106653/2016 (GM-RES) having been favoured along with companion writ petitions, relief has been accorded inter alia by directing the State Government to disburse crop compensation to the farmers and to reframe Term Sheet afresh for the purpose of re- assessing the claim for insurance coverage. 2. What has been granted by way of relief to the farmers is, in terms of paragraphs 53 to 58 of the impugned order. At paragraph 53, the State Government is directed to pay compensation to the writ petitioners; at paragraph 55, a direction is issued to constitute Internal Committee at District Level for preparing Term Sheets as per the opinion formed in the meeting dated 18.09.2015; at paragraph 56, the State Government is mandated to ensure preparation of Terms Sheets afresh within three months; at paragraph 57, the Internal Committee is directed to consider the said Term Sheets adopted for the talukas of Dharwad and Kundgol in respect of same crops; and at paragraph 58, the appellant-Insurer is directed to operate the freshly generated Term Sheets and make payments to the farmers. 3. BRIEF FACTS: (a) The Central Government organized ‘National Crop Insurance Programme’ comprising of three facilities which modified National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme & Coconut Farm Insurance Scheme. We are told at the Bar that, these Schemes have been promulgated in exercise of Executive Power, there being no legislation covering the field. The Schemes intend to provide insurance against the crop loss. Under these Schemes, Insurance Companies like the appellant need to be empanelled so that they can submit prospective plans of insuring the crop loss, to the State Government which broadly is the implementing agency. (b) These appeals relate to Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (hereafter ‘WBCIS’) which provides for insurance coverage of major food crops, oil seeds & commercial crops. For the purpose of this Scheme, adverse weather incidents that ordinarily result into crop loss are deficit rain fall, excess rainfall, unseasonal rainfall, rainy days, dry days, dry spells, humidity, high/low temperature, wind speed, hailstorm, cloud burst, etc. Farmers growing the notified crops are eligible for insurance coverage and they may opt for it. However, crop insurance is made compulsory for such farmers who avail crop loans from financial institutions. Farmers growing the notified crops are eligible for insurance coverage and they may opt for it. However, crop insurance is made compulsory for such farmers who avail crop loans from financial institutions. (c) The State Level Co-ordination Committee on Crop Insurance (hereafter SLCCCI) is constituted by the State Government to oversee the implementation of WBCIS. The Committee inter alia comprises of representatives of various Government Departments. The SLCCCI holds its meeting to recommend notification of crops, areas and finalization of insurance companies. This is done keeping in view the factors such as availability of historical weather data, minimum cropped area, weather perils, etc. Under the SLCCCI, the State Government convenes meetings of insurers, experts of agro meteorology/agronomy from State Agricultural Universities for the finalization of Triggers, Term Sheets, Payouts, etc. This needs to be done before the meeting of SLCCCI is convened. Technical Committees constituted by the State Government consider selection of crop & areas, weather triggers under WBCIS and proposals received from the empanelled insurers. This Committee has a decisive role in finalizing the Term Sheets for the proposed/areas based on demonstrable co-relation with track record of weather & yield data. (d) The Term Sheets are the sheet anchors in the WBCIS. The premium is determined and collected on the basis of Term Sheets and all claims are settled only as per the Term Sheets. They are finalized and notified by the State Government which is the principal implementing agency and the significant stakeholder. The SLCCCI, for the purpose of compensation operates on the concept of ‘Area Approach’; the area which is notified by the State Government in consultation with the SLCCCI prior to commencement of the season would be a homogenous unit for the purpose of insurance and it is called RUA. In case of adverse weather incidence, the insured cultivators growing the notified crop in the same insurance unit shall be deemed to have suffered the same level of adverse weather condition and therefore, become eligible for the same rate of claims. The areas earmarked for the purpose of Scheme are called Reference Unit Areas (RUAs), which may be hobli, block, village, tehsil, etc. (e) The WBCIS scheme has a scientific basis and premised on the conclusion arrived at by the SLCCCI appointed for the purpose and the said committee consists of technical experts well experienced in crop insurance. The areas earmarked for the purpose of Scheme are called Reference Unit Areas (RUAs), which may be hobli, block, village, tehsil, etc. (e) The WBCIS scheme has a scientific basis and premised on the conclusion arrived at by the SLCCCI appointed for the purpose and the said committee consists of technical experts well experienced in crop insurance. The claims arise when there is certain adverse deviation in Actual Weather Parameter incidence in RUA (as per the actual weather data measured at Reference Weather Station (RWS) i.e., its “Actual temperature” within the time period specified in the benefit table is either less or more compared to the specified “Temperature Trigger” leading to crop losses. Adverse weather incidence leading to crop loss are deficit rains, un- season/excess rain, frost, Heat (Temperature) and Relative Humidity, etc. In such a case, subject to terms and conditions of the Scheme, all insured cultivators under particular crop shall be deemed to have suffered the same “adverse deviation” in temperature and become eligible for the claims. (f) The farmers would be required to pay only a part of total premium, balance being borne by Central Government and State Government in the ratio of 50:50. The claims under National Crop Insurance Programme are settled by the implementing Agency i.e., Agriculture Insurance Company of India as per the term sheets finalized by the State Govt. in consultation with the experts and provisions envisaged in the existing operational guidelines. As per the Term Sheets, the appellant-Insurer has settled the claims of insured farmers. However, the farmers grieved before the learned Single Judge that the Term Sheets notified by the Government being defective, they have not been fully compensated for the crop loss and therefore, they had prayed for remedy which has been granted by allowing the writ petition. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is filed. 4. However, the farmers grieved before the learned Single Judge that the Term Sheets notified by the Government being defective, they have not been fully compensated for the crop loss and therefore, they had prayed for remedy which has been granted by allowing the writ petition. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurer submitted that insurance is a matter of contract and courts cannot rewrite the same on the ground that a section of the insured has not been fully compensated; claims for insurance are settled on the basis of Term Sheets that are notified by the State Government after taking into account a host of factors over which the insurer has no control; the very Insurance Contract is founded on these Term Sheets and that accordingly, the appellant- Company has settled the claims; that being the position, learned Single Judge has grossly erred in directing reconstruction of the Term Sheets for the period gone by and on that basis to make payment of crop compensation. Lastly, he pointed out that the petition involved disputed questions of facts and that the civil court was the right forum to adjudge the dispute; there is no reason to bypass the alternate & equally efficacious remedy especially when the farmers were already paid the compensation. 5. Learned AGA appearing for the State vehemently resisted the appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured. Learned DSG appearing for the Union Government, supported the case of appellant drawing our attention to the counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit filed by his clients. The private respondent-farmers who were the writ petitioners, have chosen to remain unrepresented despite service of notice. However, that would not deter the court from adjudging the cause brought before it, in accordance with law. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Appeal Papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter and further set-aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge for the following reasons: (a) India is predominantly an agricultural country; many of its agricultural values & traditions owe their origin to agriculture; agriculture continues to be the backbone of national economy even to this day. A 16th Century mendicant philosopher Sarvajna of North Karnataka in his tercet poetically says: Meaning: In a million skills, farming tops. A 16th Century mendicant philosopher Sarvajna of North Karnataka in his tercet poetically says: Meaning: In a million skills, farming tops. It sustains the run of other trades. Minus it, a nation flops. Interest of agriculture cannot be overlooked as the State owes a constitutional obligation towards it as reiterated by the Apex Court in M.C.MEHTA vs. UNION OF INDIA, (2020)7 SCC 530 . Prof. M.S.Swaminathan, a renowned Agricultural Scientist emphasized the importance of agriculture insurance for the farms saying that it helps them to manage risks like crop failures, natural disaster & market fluctuation by providing financial protection which eventually would relieve them from debt traps. Insurance enables farmers to recover from losses making them more resilient to climate change. Insurance improves farmers’ livelihoods and encourages them to invest in better farming practices and technology. Prof. Swaminathan advocated for government-supported insurance scheme like Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, to make the same more accessible and affordable. He had stressed the importance of educating farmers about insurance benefits and processes to increase its adoption. In this direction, the Central Government has evolved certain policies, making the Provincial Governments as the implementing agencies. (b) The Insurance Scheme in question is not an outcome of statutory process as such; it is a product of a policy implementation, the said policy having been evolved in the exercise of executive power of the Central Government. Governments can enter into contract with the other governmental bodies or private persons, in exercise of its executive power, is true vide RAI SAHIB RAM JAWAYA KAPUR vs. STATE OF PUNJAB, AIR 1955 SC 549 . The policy in question indisputably contemplates multiple stakeholders such as the Central Government, the State Government, Insurance Companies and the insured farmers. There are other intermediary agency that provide inputs. It cannot be disputed that insurance coverage is a matter of contract and therefore, the terms of contract should govern the parties. Learned counsel Mr. Vivekmehta appearing for the appellant-Insurer has rightly highlighted this. “The common law has long stressed the commercial flavour of its contract. An Englishman is liable not because he has made a promise, but because he has made a bargain. Behind all forms of contract, no doubt, lies the basic idea of assent. A contracting party, unlike a tortfeasor, is bound because he has agreed to be bound. “The common law has long stressed the commercial flavour of its contract. An Englishman is liable not because he has made a promise, but because he has made a bargain. Behind all forms of contract, no doubt, lies the basic idea of assent. A contracting party, unlike a tortfeasor, is bound because he has agreed to be bound. Agreement, however, is not a mental state but an act, and, as an act, is a matter of inference from conduct. The parties are to be judged not by what is in their minds, but by what they have said or written or done[Cheshire, Fifoot & Furmston’s Law of Contract, Sixteenth Edition, Pg. 41].” (c) The substratum of a contract cannot be altered unilaterally by any party thereto. The State Government too cannot venture alteration. Even courts cannot rewrite the contracts unless enabled by the statute. Instances of such enablement one can find in the realm of labour legislation. We have not been notified any Rule or Ruling to the contra. The Term Sheets being the sheet anchor of the Insurance Contract, which the stakeholders have acted upon and that the claims of the insured farmers have been accordingly settled, it was not open to the learned Single Judge to direct reframing of the Term Sheets. That exercise is more like putting the clock back when the time runs forward with no reverse gear. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant is more than justified in contending that it is the State Government which on the basis of inputs furnished by SLCCCI & intending insurers prepares & notifies the Term Sheets; the insurer companies enter into contract of Crop Insurance on the basis of these Term Sheets. (d) A host of factors enter the fray when contract is concluded by and between the parties. In SHREE AMBICA MEDICAL STORES vs. SURAT PEOPLE’S CORP. BANK LTD, (2020) 13 SCC 564 , it is observed ‘…the court cannot rewrite or create a new contract between the parties and has to simply apply the terms and conditions of the agreement as agreed between the parties…’ The claims under National Crop Insurance Programme are settled by the implementing Agency i.e., Agriculture Insurance Company of India as per the Term Sheets finalized by the State Govt in consultation with the experts and after adverting to provisions envisaged in the existing operational guidelines. Changing the terms of the contract by one party without taking the other into confidence does not stand the test of law. The risk undertaken by the Indian Insurers is heavily reinsured in the international market and it is governed by respective laws of those jurisdictions. These reinsurance arrangements have multiple financial agreements with international reinsurers and they are multilateral in nature. The Insurance Companies arrange their reinsurance on the basis of concluded contracts at hand and obviously reshaping of terms & conditions of a concluded arrangement at a later stage would have wider ramifications in reinsurance arrangements in international markets. This aspect of the matter has not been duly adverted to in the impugned order. (e) The nature has placed Indian farmers & peasants in a disadvantageous position; they are at the mercy of Sun, rain, wind, etc. Admittedly, the very scheme in question is founded on deficit rains, excess rains, un- season rains, frost, heat, humidity & the like which have a direct bearing on the production of crops. These are all variable factors beyond the control of anyone much less the disadvantaged farmers. Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.C. MEHTA (STUBBLE BURNING & AIR QUALITY) V. UNION OF INDIA, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1733, observed: “9… Agriculture is the backbone of the economy of this country. Its interest cannot be overlooked and self-created bankruptcy cannot rescue it when the State has the obligation towards the agriculture. The Central Government is providing the money. The State Government has contributed to it. They cannot ignore the interest of the small and marginal farmers. It is the bounden duty of the Central as well as the State Government to ensure that the interest of these class of farmers is catered to and they have the facilities of farming and harvesting by modern machines…” (f) We are told at the Bar that the State has already settled the deficit claims of the farmers and presumably for that reason, they have chosen to remain unrepresented despite service of notice. Thus, a just result has been already brought about and therefore, ideally speaking, matter should have ended there qua the insurers. The entire exercise which the impugned order directs stakeholders to undertake, is intended to fasten liability on the Insurer Company contrary to the obligations undertaken by it in terms of concluded contract. Thus, a just result has been already brought about and therefore, ideally speaking, matter should have ended there qua the insurers. The entire exercise which the impugned order directs stakeholders to undertake, is intended to fasten liability on the Insurer Company contrary to the obligations undertaken by it in terms of concluded contract. It is on record that the company has already paid compensation in terms of what has been undertaken. There is no case of breach of Rule of ad idem. Pacta sunt servanda that is, ‘abide by what has been agreed to’ is the guiding principle in any civilized society, on which law of contract is founded. The concomitant of this principle is that what has not been agreed to, cannot be compelled to be performed. The impugned order thus runs counter to the rudiments of Contract Law, to the extent it ropes in the appellant- Insurer. (g) Learned Single Judge is right in telling that the State Government has abdicated its duty to frame the Term Sheets on the basis of data already that was made available on record. Blindfoldedly, the functionaries of the State Government accepted the draft Term Sheets submitted by the Insurers, which apparently shows a gross non-application of mind. This conduct attributable to the said functionaries is culpable, to say the least. That has also resulted into loss to the Exchequer, since Government is made to pay what the Insurer could have been made to reimburse, had the Term Sheets been prepared properly. Therefore, that cannot absolve the officials from their tortuous liability. However, nothing can be done to the Insurers whose action is not faltered. Lapse attributable to the Officials of the State Government cannot be laid a the threshold of the Insurer. No law is brought to our notice which justifies the contention for holding the Insurer vicariously liable for the fault of one of the stakeholders which happens to be the implementing agency. What has been lost sight of while fixing the liability of the Insurer is the parameters fixed by the contracting parties as reflected in the Term Sheets. Native jurisprudence dictates that, justice has to be done in accordance with law and not de hors. Even otherwise, the party at fault namely the State Government has parens patriae obligation to compensate the farmers. Native jurisprudence dictates that, justice has to be done in accordance with law and not de hors. Even otherwise, the party at fault namely the State Government has parens patriae obligation to compensate the farmers. The officials who failed to take due care in framing the Term Sheets, are at fault and therefore, the loss occasioned by their negligence/recklessness should be made good by them only. However, Insurer cannot be held responsible, in any way. In the above circumstances, this appeal succeeds in part; the impugned order of the learned Single Judge to the extent it intends to fasten liability on the appellant- Insurer Company is set at naught; the liability of the State Government to make good the deficit of compensation in accordance with the Term Sheets which is to be reframed as directed by the learned Single Judge, is not dislodged. The amount payable or already paid to the insured farmers as per reframed Term Sheets shall not be recovered from them. However, the loss to the Exchequer occasioned on account of the same, shall be recoverable from the erring officials of the State Government, in accordance with law. Costs made easy. Registry to send immediately by Speed Post a copy of this judgment to the under mentioned for information & needful action: [i] The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, New Delhi. [ii] The Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru.