Jyoti Saran, J.

Heard Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Rajen Sahay, learned counsel for the insurance company and learned counsel for the Bank.

2. In each of the two writ petitions, the petitioners pray for payment of crop insurance which according to them is being delayed at the hands of the respondent-insurance company and the State. While the writ petitioners in CWJC No. 17633 of 2013 espouse the grievance of the member-farmers of the 'Manjhariya PACS', Gounaha block in the district of West Champaran, the petitioners in CWJC No. 8449 of 2014 represent the farmers of Barh Block, District-Patna.

Re : CWJC No. 17633 of 2013 :

3. The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the authorities of the insurance company to make payment of the crop loss insurance in relation to the insured farmers who were members of the Manjhariya Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to as 'Manjhariya PACS'), under Gounaha Block in the district of West Champaran.

4. In so far as the completion of formality is concerned it is noted that there is no dispute rather it is an admitted position that the premium in respect of the farmers under the Gounaha block did reach the insurance company as is manifest from paragraph 1 to 7 of counter affidavit of respondent no. 6 and 7 i.e. the National Central Co-operative Bank, Bettiah, West Champaran.

5. The objection comes from insurance company who have filed an exhaustive counter affidavit questioning the maintainability of the writ petition as well as on the merits of the claim. The stand taken by the insurance company at paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit by itself is sufficient to persuade this Court to refrain from exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it is stated that the eligibility to claim crop loss insurance under the policy in question which was invoked in the Kharif Season, 2010-11, rested on certain qualifications and covered such member-farmers whose actual yield fell below the threshold yield but since the actual yield of the farmers belonging to the Gaunaha block was 1312 Kg/hectare which is above the threshold yield fixed at 1089 kilograms per hectare hence they were not found entitled to the insurance. In other words, the claim of the member-farmers of the co-operative society in question is being contested inter alia on grounds of not coming within the purview of the scheme.

Re : CWJC No. 8449 of 2014

6. Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that it is in circumstances where the insurance company did not proceed to redress the grievance of the petitioner that a legal notice was served on them and when the Area Manager vide his letter dated 21.11.2013 impugned at Annexure-8 simply informed the learned counsel for the petitioners that the farmers of Barh block in the district of Patna were not found eligible for payment of insurance claimed during the Rabi Season, 2011-12 . Mr. Singh has also invited the attention of this Court to a letter dated 17.4.2013 of the insurance company and in reference thereto it is stated that the insurance claim of the petitioners has not been rejected on merits rather the letter reflects that it was only awaiting the deposit of premium by the State Government. He thus submits that the insurance company cannot be permitted to shift from their stand.

7. Even in the present case there is no issue on payment of premium as manifest from paragraph - 5 of the counter affidavit of the Bank filed in present proceedings. There is no objection from the State either rather the objection has come from the Insurance Company who have stated that the farmers of the Barh Block did not come within the eligibility criteria fixed under the Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme under which they were insured and hence they were not found entitled to cro