ORDER

The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents, particularly the Respondent No.3 and 4 to disburse the eligible compensation to the petitioner under the Prime Minister's Crop Insurance Scheme for 2018 - 2019 and for subsequent years to the petitioner and the members of the third respondent society of the Virkudi & Kanganachery Revenue Village.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had sent a representation to the third respondent on 20.09.2018, by stating that compensation under the aforesaid scheme has not been released by the fourth respondent, for the crop loss suffered in the village where the petitioner has his agricultural land. Whereas, payments were being released for four other villages. The relevant portion of the communication dated 20.09.2019, of the petitioner reads as under:

“Iah.

bghUs; : ,rl;/V/114 bjhlf;f ntshz;ik TlL; wt[ t';fp 2018-2019 f';fshQ;nrhp gaph; fhg;gPL bjhif tH'F; jy; rhh;ghf/

ehd; nkw;go tpw;Fo Cuhl;rp fpuhk';fspy; tptrhaj; jiytuhf cs;nsd;/ jh';fs; ,rl;/V/114 bjhlf;f ntshz;ik TlL; wt[ t';fpapy; jpUkUfy; xd;wpaj;jpy; butpdpa{ fpuhk';fspy; MW fpuhk';fs; j';fspd; flL; g;ghlo; y; cs;sJ/ tptrha fld; kw;Wk; gaph; fhg;gPL braJ; cWg;gpdh;fshf cs;sdh;/ jw;bghGJ t';fpf;F gaph; fhg;gPL bjhif teJ; s;sJ/ eh';fs; tprhhpj;j tifapy; MW butpdpa{ fpuhk';fspy; ehd;F butpdpa{ fpuhk';fSf;F klL; k; gaph;fhg;gPL bjhif teJ; s;sjhft[k;. tpw;Fo kw;Wk; f';fshQ;nrhp butpdpa{ fpuhkj;jpw;F gaph; fhg;gPLbjhif tutpy;iy vd;W jfty; bjhpfpwJ/

tptrha;fs; rhh;ghf ,J rk;ke;jkhf nfhh;l;il mZfp nky;eltof;if vLf;f ,Ugg; jhy; eltof;if cj;jut[ tUk;tiu kw;w butpdpa{ fpuhk';fSf;F gaph; fhg;gPL bjhif tH';fhky; ,Uf;f epWj;jp itj;jpl ntz;Lkha;

tptrhapfs; rhh;ghf nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpnwhk;/

j';fs; czi; ka[s;s”

3. The third and fourth respondent are duty bound to pay compensation to farmers under the aforesaid scheme for loss suffered, if they meet the criteria under the scheme.

4. It is submitted that after receiving the application from the petitioner, the second respondent directed the subordinates to make a field inspection and after a field inspection was carried out, a report was submitted to the second respondent on 05.12.2018 and 10.03.2019.

5. It is further submitted that in terms of the G.O.(Ms).No.293, Agriculture (APL6) Department dated 12.06.2016, the scheme was implemented in Tamil Nadu and that the Agricultural Department has no role in the sanction and disbursement of claim amount except monitoring of the activities in accordance with the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yogna Scheme guidelines issued by the Government of India.

6. It is further submitted by the first and second respondent that the petitioner has not challenged any of the orders of the Agriculture Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, the first respondent and the District Collector, Nagapattinam, the second respondent herein.

7. It is further submitted that no cause of action has been shown by the petitioner for impleading the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government and it is therefore submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the fourth respondent Insurance Company which is responsible for disbursing the compensation based on the information furnished by the Department of Economics and Statistics.

9. In this case, the information was sent by the Commissioner of Department of Economics and Statistics, Chennai on 21.05.2019, showing the results of crop cutting experiments conducted village wise for paddy and samba crops during 2018 to 2019 under the aforesaid scheme in Tamil Nadu by adopting single series system.

10. It is submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to any compensation as the actual yield in the village of the petitioner was above the threshold yield as per the data furnished under the scheme.

11. In this connection, the learned counsel for