KEDARI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners who are sugarcane growers of Athani Taluk have questioned the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 29-5-2002 (Annexure-B) (Published in the Karnataka gazette Notification on 25-7-2002) issued by the first respondent in so far as it relates to sugarcane crop in Athani Taluka of belgaum District and sought for quashing of the same. Further, in the alternative, the petitioners have sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus to respondents 1 to 3 not to enforce the impugned order against the sugarcane growers who have availed crop loan on or before 25-7-2002. urging various legal Contentions.

(2.) THE petitioners are sugarcane growers having their agricultural lands within a distance of about 3 kms. from the Krishna river in Athani Taluk of Belgaum District and they have availed loan from third respondent-Bank. The Government of India formulated the national Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) called 'rashtriya Krishi bima Yojana' (in short the Scheme') vide annexure-A aiming to provide Insurance coverage in respect of crops in the areas as notified by the State Governments concerned. The State Level Co-ordination committee on Crop Insurance (in short 'the Committee') was constituted under the abovesaid scheme vide its report dated 4-5-2002 recommended for Inclusion of sugarcane crop in Belgaum District and accordingly first respondent vide order dated 29-5-2002 vide annexure-B has notified Sugarcane Crop in eight Talukas of Belgaum District for compulsory Crop Insurance including the taluka of Athani.

(3.) IT is stated that under the said Scheme the General Insurance Company shall insure the notified crop of the Sugarcane grower who avail crop loan on the applictlon of the financing Agency and the Insyrance premium is fixed by the State Government at 3. 85% of sum assured. It is the further case of the petitioners that their Association vide its representation dated 31-8-2002 vide Annexure-C requested respondent-Bank not to debit premium money to their loan accounts and warned that if any debit is made ignoring their request, it is at the risk of the Bank only. Further stated that, the Bank expressed its helplessness saying that under the Scheme it has no discretion. It is urged by the learned counsel appearing for petitioners Sri Krishna S. Dixit that the insurance scheme framed by the first respondent has no statutory force to insure the sugarcane crop compulsorily without the consent and willingness of the concerned grower.