Back
2021 Supreme(Bom) 866
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Sunil P Deshmukh, Abhay Ahuja, JJ.
Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Beed - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4066 of 2018
Decided On : 09-03-2021
S.S. Thombre, Advocate, S.B. Solanke, Advocate, S.P. Sonpawale, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the relaxation of conditions by the State and the petitioner's participation in a welfare measure entitled it to reimbursement, emphasizing the importance of the Government Resolution and constitutional provisions.
Headnote:
ex-gratia - Agricultural Produce Market Committee - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Government Resolution dated 20.08.2015 - Article 48 of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Agricultural Produce Market Committee, sought a writ to direct the release of ex-gratia amount for maintaining a cattle camp during a drought. The government had set conditions for receiving ex-gratia financial assistance, including a minimum of 500 cattle in a camp.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State had relaxed the minimum cattle requirement to 250 animals, and the petitioner's camp met the stipulated requirements. The court held that the petitioner's claim for ex-gratia payment was valid and ordered the release of the amount with interest.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to ex-gratia payment for maintaining a cattle camp with less than 500 cattle during a specified period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Government Resolution dated 20.08.2015 and Article 48 of the Constitution of India to interpret the entitlement of the petitioner to ex-gratia payment. It emphasized that the State's relaxation of the minimum cattle requirement and the petitioner's participation in a welfare measure entitled it to reimbursement.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, ordering the release of the ex-gratia amount to the petitioner with interest, specifically in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.
JUDGMENT
Abhay Ahuja, J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is seeking a writ directing the respondents to release the ex-gratia amount of Rs.9,45,665/- to petitioner for the animal camp run at Gaulwadi, District Beed for a period from 09.01.2016 to 31.01.2016 and from 01.02.2016 to 16.02.2016.
3. Brief background is that petitioner being an Agricultural Produce Market Committee has its aims and objects to assist the agriculturists, inter alia, by providing fodder to the needy agriculturists to maintain their cattle, etc. Due to acute drought condition in the season of 2015-2016 in Beed, Latur and Osmanabad Districts, when the rainfall was less than average and the strength of animals being more in the three Districts and there being scarcity of fodder, the Government took a decision to form cattle camps which would receive ex-gratia financial assistance from the Government for maintaining the cattle in the said camp and issued Government Resolution dated 20.08.2015 to implement the said decision. As per condition no. 2 of the said Government Resolution, to avail the ex-gratia financial assistance, the minimum number of cattle was of 500 and maximum of 3000 cattle in a camp. However, the Collector was empowered to relax the condition of minimum cattle to the extent of 250. The farmers were also required to take cattle home for 8 to 10 days; the Tahasildar and Deputy Collector were authorized to inspect the camps. As per condition no. 12 of the said Government Resolution against big cattle, payment to be received was Rs. 70/- per day and against small cattle payment to be received was Rs. 35/- per day. The responsibility of making the payment was on the Collector.
4. The said Government Resolution was widely advertised and pursuant to such advertisement, the petitioner applied for permission to open the camp at Gaulwadi in August 2015 as there were huge number of cattle, particularly milky cattle. The Collector approved the proposal and granted permission to the petitioner to open cattle camp by order dated 07.12.2015. It is submitted that due to drought condition, there was water as well as fodder scarcity and therefore both these necessities had to be purchased with own / borrowed funds, so that the cattle do not starve.
5. Petitioner submits that the camp was inspected by Tahasildar and Deputy Collector time to time. Talathi and Circle Inspector have given daily visits to the camp and maintained visit book. The officers have maintained daily report of the cattle available, which includes the period 01.01.2016 to 29.02.2016. It is submitted by the petitioner that till 17.02.2016 there were 500 cattle, on 31.03.2016 the number was 548 and on 30.04.2016 it was 571. It is submitted that the visit book was maintained from 24.12.2015 to 08.06.2016 pursuant to the directives of the Collector.
6. During the period 01.01.2016 to 31.01.2016 and 01.02.2016 to 16.02.2016 the number was less than 500, but between 250 to 480. It is submitted that the Collector issued a letter dated 16.11.2015 and relaxed the strength of cattle upto 250. Petitioner submits that though from 09.01.2016 16.02.2016, the strength of the cattle was below 500, but more than 300 and again from 17.02.2016 it was above 500 upto 08.06.2016 and after that, it was reduced upto 09.02.2016 and camp was closed on 10.02.2016. It is submitted that ex gratia payment as per the report was paid by the respondents as and when there were more than 500 cattle. However, for the period of 38 days from 09.01.2016 to 31.01.2016 to 16.02.2016, no payment was made on the ground that the cattle maintained was less than 500.
7. Petitioner submits that even though it maintained more than 300 cattle during the period mentioned, no payment was made for the short period, and therefore, they approached the Collector, however, the s
