Bombay High Court
Rajesaheb Sahebrao Patil And Anr vs The Union Of India And Ors on 15 July, 2019
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale, R. G. Avachat
1 P.I.L. No. 141/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
14. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 141 of 2018
Rajesaheb S/o Sahebrao Patil and another ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents
Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. A.B. Dhongde, Advocate for Respt. No.1
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respts. No.2 to 8
Mr. M.R. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respt. No.9
Mr. N.B. Khandare, Advocate for Respts. No. 10 & 11
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE,
AND
R. G. AVACHAT, JJ.
DATE : 15th July, 2019
ORAL ORDER:
1. Mr. Salunke, learned Counsel for the petitioners, orally prays for amendment to the petition by adding the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department (Relief and Rehabilitation), Mantralaya, Mumbai. as a party respondent. The oral prayer is allowed. The amendment be carried out during the course of the day.
2. Issue notice to the added respondent. The learned ::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 00:07:06 ::: 2 P.I.L. No. 141/2018 Asstt. Govt. Pleader waives notice for the added respondent.
3. By order dated 30th October, 2018 this Court referred to the grievance raised in the present Public Interest Litigation. Notice was issued and in response to the notice, an affidavit-in- reply is filed on behalf of respondents No. 2, 4 and 5 on 12 th February, 2019 as well as on behalf of respondent No.8 on the very date i.e. 12th February, 2019. Rejoinder was filed on behalf of the petitioners on certain rival claims in respect of a statement being made in presence of Press Reporters. By order dated 3 rd July, 2019 we directed the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader to take instructions.
4. Though it was submitted by Mr. Salunke, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that a specific statement was made in the rejoinder in respect of a particular file No. PMPVY-2018/SA-8/Soyabin/392/2018 and the State Authorities are silent on the aspect of this file. The petitioners by availing remedies under the Right to Information Act, collected some information. At this stage, we are not inclined to enter in this aspect and we propose to pass an order today on the basis of a communication received by the learned Additional Government Pleader dated 6th July, 2019. The communication is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification.
::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 00:07:06 ::: 3 P.I.L. No. 141/2018
5. It may be necessary for us to refer to certain facts, namely, the Government Resolution dated 20 th June, 2017 is filed on record alongwith affidavit as Annexure 'R-2'. This Govt. Resolution refers to earlier Government resolution dated 29 th April, 2016. The petitioners have also placed on record the Government Resolution dated 5th July, 2016 at Exh. A. The Government Resolution dated 5th July, 20 as well as 20th June, 2017, both refer to the earlier Government Resolution dated 29 th April, 2016 and it can safely be said that the State Government made it clear by the Government Resolution dated 20 th June, 2017 its intention to continue the scheme to provide assistance to the farmers on the basis of the scheme being floated by the Central Government under the caption of Pradhaan Mantri Pik Vima Yojna. The modalities and pre-requisites are referred to the Government Resolution dated 20th June, 2017. The scheme refers to notified area and notified crops. Now, notified area includes six districts, namely, Osmanabad, Nanded, Aurangabad, Nandurbar, Sindhudurg and Raigad, at serial No. 2 and the notified crop is referred to in clause No.3 of the Govt. Resolution i.e. Soyabean. The petitioners raise grievance of the farmers residing in the notified area and taking notified crop i.e. Soyabean. Petitioners No.1 & 2 are residing in the notified area ::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 00:07:06 ::: 4 P.I.L. No. 141/2018 i.e. Osmanabad Taluka and Lohara Taluka District Osmanabad, respectively, and taking the notified crop i.e. Soyabean.
6. The communication dated 6th July, 2019 refers to a statement that the Hon'ble Chief Minister directed on the file as "
R & R rjrwn djkoh o ns.;kr ;kos "] meaning thereby that Relief and Rehabilitation Department to make provision and pay the compensation amount for the same. The communication then states further that the Cabinet Sub-Committee has been constituted to take a decision on the matter related to payment of the relief to farmers for crop losses due to natural calamities. The Cabinet Sub-Committee is also empowered to take a decision on payment of relief to farmers for crop loss in cases other than natural calamities (Emphasis Supplied). Then it is stated in the communication that the proposal on the above issue has been received in Relief and Rehabilitation Department for placing it before the Cabinet Sub- Committee for decision. The proposal is being deliberated and decision is yet to be taken on the said issue. The reference to the proposal is on the basis of the very file number, which is referred to in the rejoinder filed in this Court by the petitioners and paragraph No. 3 of the communication refers to these facts. Now, the fact of the matter is, the Cabinet Sub-Committee is in the process of deliberation ::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 00:07:06 ::: 5 P.I.L. No. 141/2018 and is yet to take a decision.
7. Mr. Salunke, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners was justified in submitting that the issue needs to be addressed by the Cabinet Sub-Committee as early as possible and delay in the decision would only put the agriculturists to face more adverse situation. Considering this aspect of the matter, we deem it appropriate to direct added respondent No.12 i.e. the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department (Relief and Rehabilitation), Mantralaya, Mumbai, to apprise the Cabinet Sub- Committee and the Cabinet Sub-Committee to conclude the exercise of the deliberation as early as possible and not later than three weeks from today.
8. We further make it clear that after the decision, which is to be taken by the Cabinet Sub-Committee within three weeks, the Cabinet Sub-Committee and/or the concerned Department of the State of Maharashtra to disburse the amount to the beneficiaries within four weeks.
9. Added respondent No.12 i.e. the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department (Relief and Rehabilitation), Mantralaya, Mumbai, to place on record the report of compliance of the order of this Court on the next date.
::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 00:07:06 ::: 6 P.I.L. No. 141/2018
10. The present Public Interest Litigation be posted on 9 th September, 2019.
11. Authenticated copy of this order be provided to the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader to act upon.
( R. G. AVACHAT ) ( PRASANNA B. VARALE )
JUDGE JUDGE.
Madkar
::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 00:07:06 :::