Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 4668
[2024:RJ-JD:38645]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8676/2023 Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Through Its Authorized Representative And Chief Manager At Regional Office, Lokpeeda Complex, Sector - 8, R.c. Vyas Colony, Bhilwara.
----Petitioner Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Minsitry Of Agriculture And Farmers Welfare, Government Of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Commissionarate Of Agriculture, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Crop Insurance Cell Jaipur.
3. Sbi General Insurance Company Ltd., Through Its Regional Manager, 1St Floor 9, Kailash Puri, Dwarka Niwas, Opp - Bmw Showroom. Tank Road, Jaipur 302018.
----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8827/2023 Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Through Its Authorized Representative And Chief Manager At Regional Office, Lokpeeda Complex, Sector-8, R.c. Vyas Colony, Bhilwara.
----Petitioner Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Agriculture And Farmers Welfare, Government Of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Commissionerate Of Agriculture, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Corp Insurance Cell, Jaipur.
3. Sbi General Insurance Company Ltd., Through Its Regional Manager, 1St Floor 9, Kailash Puri, Dwarka Niwas, Opp Bmw Showroom, Tonk Road, Jaipur 302018.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Anil Kumar Bhandri Mr. Dinesh Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Dy.SG assisted by Mr. Uttam Singh Rajpurohit Mr. IR Choudhary, AAG assisted by Mr. Vinay Baghmar and Mr. Oshin Sharma Mr. Sanjay Nahar JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
19/09/2024
1. The petitioners have approached this Court with a grievance that due to technical glitch, the insurance premium for PMFBY Kharif 2019-2020 of two of its branches namely - Dhikola and Kasiakalan could not be remitted to the respondent No.3 –
Insurance Company.
2. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel submitted that though the premium was collected/received from the respective borrowers and the petitioners-Banks tried to remit the same well within time but the same could not be done.
3. He informed that initially the premium of four branches could not be remitted, however, the respondent No.3 – Insurance Company has subsequently, accepted the premium of two branches (Danthal and Raipur) but so far as above referred two branches are concerned, the premium is yet to be accepted by the respondent No.3 – Insurance Company.
4. Mr. Sanjay Nahar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 – Insurance Company submitted that the matter is pending consideration before the State Government as is evident from the communication dated 24.05.2022, sent by the Joint Director of Agriculture (Crop Insurance).
5. Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned Deputy Solicitor General submitted that by way of communication dated 18.02.2023, respondent No.1 -Union of India had directed all the insurance companies to accept the premium within the stipulated timeline.
6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, this Court finds that the petitioners’ request to accept the premium remitted, has been turned down by the respondent No.3 – Insurance Company by the communication dated 27.02.2023, interalia informing that the matter is pending consideration by the State Government and no final decision has yet been taken with respect to bank branches (Dhikola and Kasiakalan).
7. In view of above, the present writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to file a representation in this regard before respondent No.2 – State alongwith the requisite documents and certified copy of the order instant within a period of seven days from today.
8. The respondent No.2 – State is directed to consider petitioners’ request, which appears to be genuine and worth consideration and issue appropriate direction to the respondent No.3 – Insurance Company. Necessary action be taken on or before 31.10.2024.
9. It will be required of the respondent No.2 – State to send a notice in writing to the petitioners-Banks so also the respondent No.3 – Insurance Company to appear for personal hearing on a date and time fixed by it.
10. In case, State Government is of the view that the representation filed (premium as offered) by the petitioners-Banks cannot be accepted, they shall pass a speaking order, under intimation to the petitioner. In case, the State agrees with the petitioner, they will issue necessary direction to respondent –
Insurance Company to accept the premium.
11. Needless to observe that this Court is not pronouncing upon rights of any of the parties, hence, if any decision prejudicial to petitioners’ interest is taken they shall be free to file a fresh writ petition in accordance with law.
12. Stay applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
395-396-raksha/-
