Vitthal Santosh Patil and Others v. The Secretary Ministry of Finance Union of India and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.11337 OF 2019

¶1Vitthal Santosh Patil Age: 62 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶2Pramilabai Vitthal Patil Age: 48 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶3Maharu Puna Patil, Age: 69 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶4Dnyaneshwar Jhavaru Patil Age: 59 years, Occu: Agriculture, Tal: Bhadgaon, Dist. Jalgaon

¶5Vasat Dhondu Patil Age: 52 years, Occu: Agriculture, Tal: Bhadgaon, Dist. Jalgaon

¶6Sangitabai Vasant Patil Age: 46 years, Occu: Agriculture & Household,

¶7Dinkar Zavaru Patil Age: 50 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶8Namdeo Baburao Patil Age: 58 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o: Gondgaon

¶9Dilip Nimba Patil Age: 48 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶10Sunita Dilip Patil Age: 41 years, Occu: Agriculture & Household,

¶11Ganesh Dhondu Sonar Age: 59 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶12Sambhaji Pandurang Patil Age: 38 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶13Pundlik Baburao Patil Age: 70 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶14Sanjay Dhondu Mandole Age: 47 years, Occu: Agriculture & Household,

¶15Namdev Gajanan Sonar Age: 60 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶16Ziparu Vaman Patil Age: 59 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶17Gopal Panduranga Patil Age: 24 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶18Jamnabai Nagaraj Patil Age: 69 years, Occu: Agriculture & Household,

¶19Suryakant Nagaraj Patil Age: 46 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶20Sanjay Dhandu Patil Age: 47 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶21Babulal Vaman Patil Age: 58 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶22Parmeshwar Babulal More Age: 58 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶23Neharu Lotan Patil Age: 53 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶24Pratibhabai Neharu Patil Age: 50 years, Occu: Agriculture & Household,

¶25Lotan Shankar Patil Age: 83 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶26Navasabai Lotan Patil Age: 77 years, Occu: Agriculture & Household,

¶27Ramchandra Baburao Patil Age: 70 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶28Shobhabai Parmeshwar More Age: 55 years, Occu: Agriculture & Household,

¶29Rajubai Sudhir Patil Age: 47 years, Occu: Agriculture & Household,

¶30Shobhabai Sanjay Patil Age: 44 years, Occu: Agriculture & Household,

¶31Ravindra Ganpat Patil Age: 43 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶32Dilip Ganpat Patil Age: 35 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶33Subhash Narayan Patil Age: 71 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶34Dnyaneshwar Damu Patil Age: 45 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶35Rohidas Tukaram Patil Age: 45 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶36Surekhabai Bhaurao Patil Age: 48 years, Occu: Agriculture & Household,

¶37Bhavarav Bhikaji Patil Age: 60 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶38Pushabai Hiralal Patil Age: 43 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶39Hiralal Bhikaji Jadhav Age: 55 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶40Ratna Vijay Jadhav Age: 55 years, Occu: Agriculture & Household,

¶41Ushabai Govinda Patil Age: 63 years, Occu: Agriculture & Household,

¶42Skaharam Narayan Patil Age: 59 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶43Vimalbai Sakharam Patil Age: 51 years, Occu: Agriculture & Household,

¶44Indubai Mahadu Patil Age: 74 years, Occu: Agriculture & Household,

¶45Shivaji Vinayak Patil Age: 35 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶46Jagannath Tarachand Patil Age: 91 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶47Dilip Devram Patil Age: 56 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶48Baban Fakira Patil Age: 71 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶49Suresh Namdev Patil Age: 47 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶50Suresh Mahadu Patil Age: 49 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶51Nital Govinda Patil Age: 42 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶52Dhondu Tukaram Patil Age: 38 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶53Santosh Pandharinath Patil Age: 45 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶54Ramesh Namdev Patil Age: 66 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶55Ishwar Shivram Patil Age: 45 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶56Suresh Nathu Patil Age: 64 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶57Hiraman Babulal Koli Age: 42 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶58Subhash Rajaram Patil Age: 77 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶59Bapurao Narayan Sapkale @ Patil Age: 58 years, Occu: Agriculture

¶60Ramesh Rajaram Patil Age: 70 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶61Reshmabi Bhoju Patil Age: 78 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶62Shreepat Piran Patil Age: 64 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶63Latabai Bhaskar Patil Age: Major, years, Occu: Agriculture & Household,

¶64Devaji Onkar Patil Age: 78 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶65Ashok Namdev Patil Age: 73 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶66Govinda Bhikaji Patil Age: 66 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶67Ramrao Raghav Patil Age: 54 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶68Manoj Daulatrao Patil Age: 47 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶69Ananda Namdev Patil Age: 56 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶70Devram Namdev Patil Age: 51 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶71Ramkrishna Namdeo Pawar Age: 59 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶72Deoram Ratan Patil Age: 72 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶73Sagunabai Madhukar Patil Age: 49 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶74Kusumbai Dhanraj Patil Age: 57 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶75Kalpana d/o Damu Patil Age: 44 years, Occu: Agriculture & Household,

¶76Motilal Namdeo Patil Age: 53 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶77Lalitabai Ramesh Patil Age: 55 years, Occu: Agriculture & Household,

¶78Dhanraj Tukaram Patil Age: 50 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶79Sanjay Govinda Patil @ Sapkal Age: 48 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶80Sanjay Govinda Patil @ Marathe Age: 48 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶81Bhila Jagnnath Patil Age: 55 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶82Prakash Khandu Patil Age: 61 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶83Narayan Kashinath Wani Age: 62 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶84Bapurao Kashinath Kotkar@Wani Age: 69 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶85Bayjabai d/o Lotan Patil Age: 56 years, Occu: Agriculture & Household,

¶86Kamalbai Shaligram Patil Age: 65 years, Occu: Agriculture & Household,

¶87Dattatray Kashinath Kotkar @ Wani Age: 45 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶88Jagannath Devchand Patil Age: 80 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶89Shaligram Dayaram Patil (Died) Through L.R. Kamalbai Shaligram Patil Age: 65 years, Occu: Agriculture & Household,

¶90Dhanraj Nimba Patil Age: 58 years, Occu: Agriculture, … Petitioners Versus

¶1The Secretary Ministry of Finance Union of India, New Delhi

¶2The Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Department State of Maharashtra Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

¶3The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., Mumbai Regional Office 20th Floor, Stock Exchange Towers, Dalal Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 023

¶4The State of Maharashtra Through-The Collector Jalgaon

¶5The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Maharashtra State, Central Building 3rd Floor Pune 411 001

¶6The Deputy Director of Agriculture Agriculture Departmen,t Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3339 OF 2018

¶1Babulal Fakira Patil Age: 70 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶2Shantaram Fakira Patil Age: 64 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶3Vijay Santosh Patil Age: 38 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶4Pandurang Nimba Patil Age: 58 years, Occu: Agriculture, Tal: Bhadgaon, Dist. Jalgaon

¶5Barku Malji Patil Age: 65 years, Occu: Agriculture, Tal: Bhadgaon, Dist. Jalgaon

¶6Arun Zawaru Patil Age: 67 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶7Nagraj Totaram Patil Age: 57 years, Occu: Agriculture,

¶8Sudhir Bhikaji Patil Age: 52 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o: Gondgaon … Petitioners Versus

¶1The Secretary Ministry of Finance Union of India, New Delhi

¶2The Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Department State of Maharashtra Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

¶3The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., Mumbai Regional Office 20th Floor, Stock Exchange Towers, Dalal Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 023

¶4The State of Maharashtra Through-The Collector Jalgaon

¶5The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, Maharashtra State, Central Building 3rd Floor Pune 411 001

¶6The Deputy Director of Agriculture Agriculture Department Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon … Respondents … Mr. Pradhan Laxman K., Advocate for the Petitioners Smt. Sudha S. Chintamani, Advocate for Respondent No.1 in both petitions Mr. M. R. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.3 in both petitions Mr. S. S. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 4 to 6 in both petitions ... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ. DATE : 19.01.2023 ORDER: [ PER S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.]

¶1The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the relief, which is articulated in prayer clause –

(A) of the petition, that states as under: - "(A) To direct the Respondents to consider the Claims of Insurance of the petitioners and to pay insurance amounts to the petitioners of Kajgaon Revenue Circle, Taluka: Bhadgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, of their Banana Crop during the Season 2015-2016 under "The National Crop Insurance Programme (NCIP-Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS)", by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, as the case may be;"

¶2The petitioners are agriculturists and holding their respective lands within Revenue Circle-Kajgaon, Taluka Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon. They are banana growers. During the season 2015-2016, they had obtained crop loans from Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd, Gondgaon. They paid insurance premium and obtained the insurance cover for banana crop as per NCIP-Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme [hereinafter referred as "WBCIS" for short].

¶3The Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation issued administrative instructions for implementation of Pilot Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS) during Kharif 2014 under the National Crop Insurance Programme (NCIP). The objective of the scheme aims to mitigate the hardship of insured farmers against the likelihood of financial loss on account of anticipated crop loss resulting from adverse weather conditions relating to rainfall, temperature, wind, humidity etc. The scheme uses weather parameters as "proxy" for crop yields in compensating the cultivators for deemed crop losses. Payout structures are developed to the extent of losses deemed to have been suffered using the weather triggers. The scheme provides for coverage of commercial/ horticulture crops. The weather perils like rainfall (deficit/ excess/ unseasonal), temperature (high / low), relative humidity, wind speed combination of the above etc. are identified for the insurance coverage. The State Government is required to consider to cover such perils which are capable of causing severe and quantifiable loss and can be induced directly or indirectly by change in measurable weather parameters to capture the losses during the adverse climatic conditions.

¶4The insurance companies/ implementing agencies (IA) are responsible for all payouts arising out of "Adverse Weather Incidence" strictly in terms of the scheme. The responsibility of the insurers attaches only when the risk has incepted. The payout arises in case of 'Adverse Weather Incidence' equivalent to deviation between 'Trigger Weather' and 'Actual Weather' recorded at 'Reference Weather Station' during the specified time period. The weather parameter would be applicable to the notified crop in a notified reference unit. In case of adverse weather incidence (AWI), all insured cultivators growing notified crop in the reference unit are deemed to have suffered the same level of crop-loss and become eligible for the same rate of payouts.

¶5The State of Maharashtra issued a Government Resolution dated

03.12.2015 and adopted the scheme for implementation during the season 2015-2016. The Government Resolution prescribes applicability for particular crops, districts and period. The Government Resolution also provides for various triggers applicable for entitlement of the reimbursement of loss under the scheme.

¶6Certain guidelines are prescribed by National Agricultural Insurance Scheme by the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation. The role to be played by various agencies has been prescribed under those guidelines. The Financial Institutions are made responsible to submit the crop insurance declaration to the implementing agency i.e. Insurance Company within one month from the cut-off date for receipt of proposals. In case, the farmer is deprived of any benefit under the scheme due to errors/omissions/commissions of the Financial Institutions/Nodal Bank, they are liable to make good all such losses.

¶7The Government Resolution dated 03.12.2015 provides for insurance cover to Banana Crop for district Jalgaon against the triggers like loss on account of excessive temperature during the period from 01.03.2016 to

31.05.2016. The triggers of the temperature are also specified at annexure 2 of the Government Resolution. In case the temperature levels are 40.5-degree Celsius continuously for the period of three days or more in the month of March, the fixed compensation is payable depending upon the insured area for respective crops. The petitioners are trying to fit their claims under the aforesaid provision.

¶8It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent no.3/Insurance Company is appointed as implementing agency under the Government Resolution. It has released insurance claim in favour of two farmers from Kajgaon Revenue Circle. The amount of insurance reimbursement has been credited in the account of farmers namely, Manisha Nana Patil and Nana Atmaram Patil towards loss of banana crop for the season 2015-2016. However, the petitioners who are similarly situated farmers from the same Revenue Circle have been discriminated and the insurance amount is not released to them. According to the petitioners, the action on the part of respondent no.3 is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have relied upon the copies of 7/12 extract of Gat No.35/1 & Gat No.37 of Village Dalwade, Taluka Bhadgaon standing in the names of Manisha Nana Patil and Nana Atmaram Patil, who have received the benefits of insurance scheme. The petitioners have also contended that weather stations have not been installed as per the guidelines of scheme, resulting into inaccurate weather report. As such, the claim of farmers like petitioners have been frustrated.

¶9The respondent no. 3 /Insurance Company filed the affidavit in reply and denied the averments in the petition. It is their contention that writ petition is not maintainable, since the petitioners are seeking direction for implementation of contractual obligation between the parties. The civil remedy is available for enforcement of contractual obligations. The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked since adequate efficacious alternate remedy is available under general law.

¶10It is further contention of the respondent/Insurance Company that it has discharged the obligations in accordance with WBCIS and released the compensation to the eligible farmers based on the weather report received from reference weather station. It is further contention of the respondent/Insurance Company that as per the scheme, Primary Agriculture Co-operative Societies

(PACS) send farmer details to the District Central Cooperative Bank (DCC Bank) and then the bank prepares declaration form and submits it to insurance company along with premium amount. Such declaration forms contain summary of number of the insured farmers, area covered and premium amount. The list of individual farmers is maintained at the bank level. In the present case, the declaration forms were forwarded by Jalgaon District Cooperative Bank and rest of the data was maintained by it.

¶11It is further contention of respondent/Insurance Company that as per the weather data received from the reference weather station, of Kajgaon Circle trigger deviation in weather, parameters was not observed. The petitioners are the insured farmers from Kajgaon Revenue Circle. In absence of adverse weather reports meeting with requisite trigger, the petitioners are not entitled to the compensation as per WBCIS scheme.

¶12We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. The first objection that has been raised on behalf of the respondent no.3 is that, the writ petitions are not maintainable in view of the alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioners. However, we are not inclined to accept the objection for the reason that large number of insured farmers have approached this Court raising their grievance regarding non-payment of insurance benefits. This Court has issued notice in the year 2019. The pleadings are complete and the issue regarding interpretation of the scheme has been posed for our consideration. There are no disputed question of facts. In that view of the matter, it would not be appropriate to relegate the petitioners to avail the alternate remedy even though it is available.

¶13We have minutely considered the scheme. We have perused documents submitted by the parties in support of their claims. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners are holding their agricultural lands within Revenue Circle of Kajgaon, Taluka Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon. The weather data that has been placed on record by the petitioners for the relevant period would show that the requisite trigger of high temperature for continuous period of three days in the month of March has not been met with. The maximum temperature recorded by Reference Weather Station maintained by NCMSL during the period from

25.03.2016 to 31.03.2016 shows that it has never hit the requisite trigger of

40.5-degree celsius for consecutive three days. Naturally, no claim for compensation falls for consideration under the provisions of WBCIS. As per scheme, petitioners would have been entitled to receive the compensation only when the high temperature of 40.5-degree celsius is noted for three or more consecutive days during the month of March. Apparently, for want of requisite triggers, the petitioners are not eligible to receive the compensation under the scheme.

¶14It is pertinent to note here that the petitioners have placed on record temperature data received from Reference Weather Station. No dispute is raised regarding the correctness of said data. The petitioners have not placed any other contrary material before this Court that would demonstrate existence of temperature triggers that would entitle them to receive the insurance claim under WBCIS. It is trite that if the claim of petitioners is based on the particular scheme governed by guidelines, the claim will have to be dealt with in the parameters laid down under the scheme. The petitioners can neither be deprived of the benefits available under scheme nor can they be extended the benefit beyond their entitlement.

¶15The learned advocate for petitioners would submit that two farmers from Village Dalwade in Kajgaon Revenue Circle are extended benefits of the insurance claim towards banana crop during the season 2015-2016, but, the petitioners have been discriminated and similar benefits are not enlarged to them. The action of respondent/Insurance Company is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶16Learned advocate for respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the declarations in respect of two farmers, namely, Manisha Nana Patil and Nana Atmaram Patil were forwarded by the DCC Bank, Jalgaon containing details of their insured banana crop. As per the declarations received by the insurance company, the lands of those farmers situate within Kolgaon Revenue Circle of Taluka Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon. He would further point out that the weather data for Kolgaon reference station shows the operation of requisite trigger of high temperature during the month of March-2016 and all the farmers from Kolgaon Revenue Circle are extended benefit of the insurance cover. He would further submit that concerned Bank has admitted clerical mistake that had occurred in data entry of farmers, namely, Manisha Nana Patil and Nana Atmaram Patil. Their revenue circles have been wrongly mentioned as Kolgaon in the declaration although their lands fall within the Revenue Circle of Kajgaon. Because of such wrong data entry of Revenue Circle in the declarations of those farmers, the compensation came to be released. We have perused the correspondence between DCC Bank Jalgoan and Insurance Company as well as the correspondence between the DCC Bank and PACS. It shows that the mistake was caused while making data entry and the revenue circle of two farmers was wrongly recorded by PACS. The remedial measures are undertaken for correction of such mistake.

¶17The learned advocate Mr. Laxman Pradhan has relied upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in PIL No.91/2021 [Prashant s/o Achyutrao Lomate & Anr. Vs. The Union of India & Others], to contend that the Insurance Company cannot discriminate amongst the insured farmers and release the benefits to one set of farmers while denying the similar benefit to other set of farmers. At this stage, the reference can be given to the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the matter of State of Bengal and Others Vs. Debasish Mukherjee and others (2011) 14 SCC 187, which reads as under :- "26. It is now well settled that guarantee of equality before law is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner. If an illegality or an irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or group of individuals, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of Courts and Tribunals to require the state to commit the same irregularity or illegality in their favour on the reasoning that they have been denied the benefits which have been illegally or arbitrarily extended to others."

¶18In our considered view, in the facts of the present case, there is no room to hold that respondent no.3/Insurance Company has discriminated amongst the similarly situated farmers, as it has been pointed out that the declaration of benefited farmers were wrongly issued, showing them from Kolgaon Revenue Circle instead of Kajgaon Revenue Circle and they have been wrongly paid the compensation. The communication issued by the Jalgaon DCC Bank Ltd. further shows that the remedial steps have already been taken for recovery of the amount wrongly paid to those farmers. The petitioners cannot derive the benefit from the clerical error caused during the data entry.

¶19The upshot of above discussion, the petitioners are not entitled to compensation under WBCIS scheme. Their prayers for grant of insurance claim cannot be considered beyond the guidelines of WBCIS. The petitioners cannot seek advantage of the mistake committed by the bank while entering data in the computer system or declarations made by the bank, particularly when petitioners could not establish their entitlement to receive the compensation amount under the scheme. Hence, we do not find merit in the writ petitions and dismiss them same with no order as to costs. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) Sameer