Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 686
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, P. RAJAMANICKAM, JJ.
The Special Officer, Ramanathapuram District Central Co-operative Bank, Ramanathapuram – Appellant
Versus
Uthayanan & Others – Respondents
W.A (MD) No.114 of 2014 & M.P (MD) No.1 of 2014
Decided on : 12-08-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :D. Shanmugaraja Sethupathi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:C. Vnkatesh Kumar for M/s. Ajmal Associates, Aayiram K. Selvakumar, Additional Government Pleader, K. Mu. Muthu, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of effectively performing public duties and responsibilities, especially in the context of government schemes and programs aimed at safeguarding the interests of the public.
Headnote:
Agricultural Insurance Scheme - National Agricultural Insurance Scheme - - [National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, Right to Information Act, 2005, Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, Constitution of India, 97th Amendment] - The court discussed the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme and the responsibilities of the Agricultural Insurance Company of India Limited as the Nodal Agency. It also referenced the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, along with the 97th Amendment to the Constitution of India. The court highlighted the public duties and responsibilities of the Nodal Agency and the implications of failing to perform them effectively.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute related to the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme and the responsibilities of the Agricultural Insurance Company of India Limited as the Nodal Agency. The court was called upon to determine the liability of the Nodal Agency for failing to perform its duties effectively.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Nodal Agency failed to perform its public duties effectively and responsibly, leading to adverse consequences for the farmers. It upheld the decision of the lower court and dismissed the writ appeal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the performance of public duties by the Nodal Agency, the liability for failing to fulfill responsibilities, and the implications of the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the public duties and responsibilities of the Nodal Agency and the implications of failing to perform them effectively. It also referenced relevant legal provisions and constitutional amendments to support its decision.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
M. Sathyanarayanan, J.
(Prayer: Writ Appeal - filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order passed in W.P (MD) No. 5185 of 2010 dated 04.01.2013.)
1. The third respondent in the writ petition is the appellant and aggrieved by the disposal of W.P(MD)No.5185 of 2010 filed by the private respondents, with certain directions vide the impugned order dated 04.01.2013, the appellant has filed this writ appeal.
2. The facts leading to the filing of this case have been narrated in detail and in extension in the impugned order, which is a subject of challenge in this writ appeal. Therefore, it is unnecessary to reiterate the said facts once again.
3. The Government of India has formulated a Scheme namely 'National Agricultural Insurance Scheme', to provide insurance coverage and financial support to the farmers in the event of failure of crops as a result of natural calamities, drought of water resources, pests and diseases and in order to safeguard their interest, the Government of India introduced a crop insurance, whereby the agriculturists are required to pay premium for the said insurance and in case of failure in the crop cultivation due to shortfall in rain or owing to some other reasons, the Government of India after perusal and making spot inspection by the Revenue Authorities and District Collector would make good the loss sustained due to failure of the corps and in order to implement the said Scheme, the Government have also incorporated a Company namely 'Agricultural Insurance Company of India Limited' in Short 'AIC' and all the farmers growing notified crops in the notified area are entitled to avail the said Scheme.
4. The terms of the said Scheme contemplates that the farmers are required to pay the premium along with necessary documents and declaration to the concerned Primary Agricultural Cooperative banks within cut-off date fixed by the 'AIC' and after collecting the premium from the farmers, the concerned Primary Agricultural Cooperative Banks, have to send the proposal to the District Central Cooperative Bank in the prescribed Form and the said District Central Cooperative Bank would collect and organize the proposal sent by various Primary Agricultural Cooperative Banks and forward the same to the 'AIC' and the appellant herein is designated as a 'Nodal Agency' and it is their stand that except the limited role of forwarding the proposal to the 'AIC', they have no role to play.
5. The third respondent being the Nodal Agency has also issued a circular dated 25.09.2007 framing certain guidelines to be followed by all Primary Agricultural Cooperative Banks and it appears that the concerned Field Manager of Aanaiyur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank namely the fourth respondent in the writ petition/36th respondent herein, had failed to forward the proposals in time to the Branch Manager and there was some delay in sending the premium amount along with the proposal Forms to 'AIC' and subsequently, the Regional Manager of 'AIC' vide communication dated 19.11.2008 had rejected the claim for PADDY II – 2007 and returned the Declaration Form and Demand Draft on the ground of delay in sending the premium and it appears that disciplinary action has been taken against the Field Manager one Mr.Ramraj.
6. The learned single Judge having taken note of the facts and circumstances and after thorough consideration and appreciation of the rival submissions, had disposed of the writ petition in the following terms. It is relevant to extract paragraph No.14 ('operative portion) of the said order.
“14. In view of all of the above, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:
“(i) The District Collector, Ramanathapuram, shall hold a detailed enquiry in respect of the loss sustained by the petitioners during relevant period, due to loss of crops and quantify the compensation to be paid on account of the actual loss sustained by each petitioner and submit a report to the respondents 3 and 4.
(ii)
