wp.1188.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 1188/2016 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1189/2016 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1190/2016 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1191/2016 ig WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1192/2016 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1193/2016 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1194/2016 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1195/2016 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1196/2016 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1197/2016 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1198/2016 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1199/2016 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1200/2016
1) WRIT PETITION NO.1188/2016 Kailash s/o Narayan Pachpor Aged 29 years, occu: Agriculturist R/o Jalgaon Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar District; Buldana. ..PETITIONER v e r s u s ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2016 00:06:44 ::: wp.1188.16 2
1) The Government of Maharashtra Department of Cooperation Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya, Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
3) District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies Taluka level Committee Buldana cum Member Secretary of formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
5) Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale
R/o House No.55, Viraj Park
Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5. ............................................................................................................................
2) WRIT PETITION NO.1189/2016 Sheshrao s/o Namdev Deshmukh Aged 72 years, occu: Agriculturist R/o Jalgaon Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar District; Buldana. ..PETITIONER v e r s u s
1) The Government of Maharashtra Department of Cooperation Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya, Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2016 00:06:44 ::: wp.1188.16 3 Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
3) District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies Buldana cum Member Secretary of Taluka level Committee formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
5) Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale
R/o House No.55, Viraj Park
Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5. ............................................................................................................................
3) WRIT PETITION NO.1190/2016 Suresh s/o Harlal Rathod Aged 70 years, occu: Agriculturist R/o Jalgaon Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar District; Buldana. ..PETITIONER v e r s u s
1) The Government of Maharashtra Department of Cooperation Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya, Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
3) District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2016 00:06:44 :::wp.1188.16 4
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies Buldana cum Member Secretary of Taluka level Committee formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
5) Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale
R/o House No.55, Viraj Park
Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5. ............................................................................................................................
4) WRIT PETITION NO.1191/2016 Gajanan s/o suryabhan Jadhav Aged 50 years, occu: Agriculturist R/o Jalgaon Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar District; Buldana. ..PETITIONER v e r s u s
1) The Government of Maharashtra Department of Cooperation Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya, Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
3) District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies Buldana cum Member Secretary of Taluka level Committee formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
5) Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2016 00:06:44 ::: wp.1188.16 5 R/o House No.55, Viraj Park Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5.
............................................................................................................................
5) WRIT PETITION NO.1192/2016 Ramesh s/o Meram Rathod Aged 50 years, occu: Agriculturist R/o Jalgaon Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar District; Buldana. ..PETITIONER v e r s u s
1) The Government of Maharashtra Department of Cooperation Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya, Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
3) District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies Buldana cum Member Secretary of Taluka level Committee formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
5) Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale
R/o House No.55, Viraj Park
Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2016 00:06:44 ::: wp.1188.16 6 Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5. ............................................................................................................................
6) WRIT PETITION NO.1193/2016 Punjabai w/o Vishnu Dhanore Aged 55 years, occu: Agriculturist R/o Jalgaon Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar District: Buldana. ..PETITIONER v e r s u s
1) The Government of Maharashtra Department of Cooperation Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya, Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
3) District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies Buldana cum Member Secretary of Taluka level Committee formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
5) Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale
R/o House No.55, Viraj Park
Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5. ............................................................................................................................
7) WRIT PETITION NO.1194/2016 Subhash s/o Dattatray Pachpor Aged 29 years, occu: Agriculturist ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2016 00:06:44 ::: wp.1188.16 7 R/o Jalgaon Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar District; Buldana. ..PETITIONER v e r s u s
1) The Government of Maharashtra Department of Cooperation Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya, Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
3) District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies Buldana cum Member Secretary of Taluka level Committee formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
5) Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale
R/o House No.55, Viraj Park
Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5. ............................................................................................................................
8) WRIT PETITION NO.1195/2016 Ramdas s/o Tulsiram Wankhede Aged 63 years, occu: Agriculturist R/o Deulgaon Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar District; Buldana. ..PETITIONER v e r s u s
1) The Government of Maharashtra Department of Cooperation ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2016 00:06:44 ::: wp.1188.16 8 Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya, Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
3) District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies Buldana cum Member Secretary of Taluka level Committee
5) formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale R/o House No.55, Viraj Park Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS ...........................................................................................................................
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5.
............................................................................................................................
9) WRIT PETITION NO.1196/2016 Vinod s/o sitaram Dhawale Aged 38 years, occu: Agriculturist R/o Jalgaon Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar District; Buldana. ..PETITIONER v e r s u s
1) The Government of Maharashtra Department of Cooperation Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya, Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
3) District Deputy Registrar of ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2016 00:06:44 ::: wp.1188.16 9 Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies Buldana cum Member Secretary of Taluka level Committee formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
5) Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale
R/o House No.55, Viraj Park
Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5.
............................................................................................................................
10) WRIT PETITION NO.1197/2016 Gopal s/o Bhikaji Surve Aged 29 years, occu: Agriculturist R/o Jalgaon Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar District; Buldana. ..PETITIONER v e r s u s
1) The Government of Maharashtra Department of Cooperation Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya, Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar Maharashtra State, Pune-12.
3) District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies Buldana cum Member Secretary of Taluka level Committee ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2016 00:06:44 ::: wp.1188.16 10 formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
5) Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale
R/o House No.55, Viraj Park
Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5. ............................................................................................................................
11) WRIT PETITION NO.1198/2016 Kashibai w/o Madan Rathod Aged 62 years, occu: Agriculturist R/o Deulgaon-Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar District; Buldana. ..PETITIONER v e r s u s
1) The Government of Maharashtra Department of Cooperation Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya, Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
3) District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies Buldana cum Member Secretary of Taluka level Committee formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
5) Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale
R/o House No.55, Viraj Park
Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2016 00:06:44 :::wp.1188.16 11 Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5. ............................................................................................................................
12) WRIT PETITION NO.1199/2016 Sohan s/o Manikchand Jain Aged 50 years, occu: Agriculturist R/o Deulgaon- Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar District; Buldana. ..PETITIONER v e r s u s
1) The Government of Maharashtra Department of Cooperation Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya, Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar Maharashtra State, Pune-12.
3) District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies Buldana cum Member Secretary of Taluka level Committee formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
5) Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale
R/o House No.55, Viraj Park
Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5. ............................................................................................................................
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2016 00:06:44 :::wp.1188.16 12
13) WRIT PETITION NO.2000/2016 Vasudev s/o Kisan Sardar Aged 52 years, occu: Agriculturist R/o Deulgaon- Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar District; Buldana. ..PETITIONER v e r s u s
1) The Government of Maharashtra Department of Cooperation Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya, Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
3) District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies Buldana cum Member Secretary of Taluka level Committee formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
5) Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale
R/o House No.55, Viraj Park
Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5. ............................................................................................................................
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2016 00:06:44 ::: wp.1188.16 13 CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A NAIK & SMT . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ . DATED : 11th August, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, J.) Since the issue involved in these Writ Petitions is similar and since the order of the District Level Committee that was required to consider the proposal of the petitioners, as per the Debt Relief Policy of the State Government in Government Resolution, dated 10.4.2015, has rejected the proposals of the petitioners, by a common order the petitions are heard together and are decided by this common judgment.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. All the petitioners herein, had obtained loan from the money-
lenders that were holding a valid money-lending license. It is the case of the petitioners that during the past few years, there were scanty rains in the State of Maharashtra and the yield of the crops was marginal. Considering the pitiable condition of the farmers and their inability to pay the debts, the Government framed the Debt Relief Scheme as per the Government Resolution dated 10.4.2015, thereby permitting the waiver of the loans to the deserving farmers. It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid scheme ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2016 00:06:44 ::: wp.1188.16 14 was framed, with a view to prevent suicides due to the heavy debts incurred by the farmers and due to the marginal yield of the crops. As per clauses 3 and 4 of the Policy, a money-lender was required to sent the proposal for waiver of the loan/debt of the farmers, like the petitioners to the Taluqa Level Committee. It is not in dispute that in these cases, the money-lender with a valid money-lending licence had submitted the proposals of the petitioners herein, to the Taluqa Level Committee for grant of benefit of the Debt Relief Scheme, to the petitioners. The Taluqa Level Committee recommended the cases of the petitioners to the District Level Committee. The District Level Committee, by a common order dated 30.12.2015, rejected the proposals of all the petitioners, while accepting the proposals of some others.
3. Shri P.B. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the District Level Committee has acted in a very high-handed manner in rejecting the proposals of the petitioners while accepting the proposals of some other farmers. It is submitted that the District Level Committee was required to physically verify the fields and also verify whether the loan amount was utilised, for the purpose for which it was secured. It is submitted that in the case of several petitioners, the physical verification was admittedly not done by the District Level Committee, as the petitioners were not present on the spot. It is stated that no notice was issued to the petitioners asking the petitioners to remain present on the field on a particular day and the ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2016 00:06:44 ::: wp.1188.16 15 petitioners were therefore not expected to remain present at the time of the visit of the members of the District level Committee. It is stated that the physical verification ought to have been made in the presence of the petitioners and some opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioners to explain that they had utilised the loan amount only for the purpose for which the loan was secured. It is stated that in respect of some other petitioners, the District Level Committee has rejected the claims on the ground that the land of the said petitioners was small and the loan amount was disproportionate to the extent of the land for which it was secured. It is stated that though according to the District Level Committee the land of some of the petitioners whose claims have been rejected on that ground were small and the loan amount was more, the District Level Committee, by the very same order has accepted the proposals of several other farmers whose lands were equally small and the loan amount was the same or more. It is submitted that since such an action on the part of the District Level Committee is clearly arbitrary and discriminatory. It is submitted that the object of the Debt Relief Scheme is to provide some succor to the farmers who were losing their lives in view of the heavy debts that were incurred by them, the rejection of the claims of two claimants on the ground that the money-lenders from whom they had secured the loan were holding the money lending license within the jurisdiction of Buldana District, the lands of these petitioners were situated on the border-line of Buldana and Akola Districts is improper. It is stated that ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2016 00:06:44 ::: wp.1188.16 16 the rejection of the claim of the two petitioners on this ground would be in violation of the Debts Relief Policy, that is framed by the Government, as per the Government Resolution, especially clause (3) of paragraph 1 of the policy.
It is stated that the entire approach on the part of the District Level Committee in deciding the proposals of the petitioners and the other land holders, is clearly arbitrary and it would be necessary in the circumstances of the case, to direct the District Level Committee to reconsider the claims of the petitioners in accordance with law. It is stated that if the benefit of the policy could be given to the other land-holders whose lands were small and the loan was large, the District Level Committee could not have accepted the proposal of the similarly situated land-holders/ agriculturists whose lands were equally small and loan amount was equal or more than the loan secured by some of the petitioners. It is stated that though from the physical verification report in respect of some of the petitioners, it is absolutely clear that the amount secured by these petitioners towards loan was utilized for the purpose for which it was secured, the District level Committee has rejected the proposals of the petitioners. It is stated that it is not necessary under the Policy to secure the loan only for the purpose of agriculture and if a farmer has secured the loan for medical expenses, in view of the ailments suffered by him or his family members, the District Level Committee is not entitled to reject the proposal. It is stated that it is not stated in the policy of the Government that loan waiver would be only in respect of the agricultural loan.
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2016 00:06:44 :::wp.1188.16 17
4. Mrs. K.R.Deshpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, supported the order of the District Level Committee. It is submitted that though certain members that were deputed by the District Level Committee went to the respective spots for verification, since the petitioners were not present, the physical verification could not be made. It is stated that as per the Policy, it would be necessary for a claimant to have his landed property in the District of Buldana if the loan is secured from a money-lender of Buldana. The learned Assistant Government Pleader referred to the clarification, to the Government Resolution dated 18 th June, 2015. It is, however, fairly admitted after perusing the chart incorporated in the impugned order that the proposals of some of the debtors/ claimants whose lands were equally small and who have secured the loan to the extent of the loan amount secured by some of the petitioners, their proposals were accepted by the District Level Committee. It is stated that the loan is required to be secured by a claimant under the policy, only for agricultural purposes. It is however fairly admitted that the petitioners were not informed about the date on which the physical verification was to be made and that they should remain present on the spot on a particular day and particular time. In the circumstances of the case, the learned Assistant Government Pleader states that an appropriate order may be passed.
5. Mr. Gopal Mishra, the learned counsel for the respondents ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2016 00:06:44 ::: wp.1188.16 18
-money lender submits that the respondent-money lenders are having a valid money lending license that could be operated within the District of Buldana.
It is stated that the accounts of the money-lender were duly audited before the scheme was floated by the State Government, by the Government Resolution dated 10.4.2015. It is stated that after considering the individual cases of the debtors, the money-lender had rightly submitted the proposal of the said debtors including the petitioners to the Taluqa Level Committee, for verification. It is stated that though the Taluqa Level Committee has rightly recommended the cases of the petitioners, the District Level Committee has illegally rejected the claims. The learned counsel states that a direction would be necessary to the District Level Committee to consider the proposals of the petitioners favourably and grant the benefit of the Debt Relief Scheme to them.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the impugned order, as also the Government Resolution, we find that the District Level Committee has not properly conducted itself in deciding the proposals of the petitioners and the other claimants. It appears that the respondents/money-lenders had submitted the proposals of the petitioners and several others to the Taluqa Level Committee for grant of benefit under the Debt Relief Scheme, to them. The Taluqa Level Committee, on verifying the facts in the case of each of the petitioners, had prepared a favourable ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2016 00:06:44 ::: wp.1188.16 19 report and had forwarded the proposals of the petitioners to the District Level Committee along with the proposal of the other claimants, for passing appropriate orders and granting benefit to them. The members of the District Level Committee have conducted the physical verification without informing the concerned parties. It was not expected of the District Level Committee to conduct the physical verification without any intimation to the concerned. It was necessary for the District Level Committee to have informed the date on which it intended to conduct the physical verification, so that each of the land holders/debtors, who could be benefitted by the Scheme, could explain as to how he has utilised the amount that was secured by him/her from the money lenders, as loan. The Inspecting team went to the spot only once and since some of the petitioners were not present on the spot, the physical verification was not done in respect of those petitioners, at all. Though the physical verification was done in respect of some of the petitioners and a favourable report was submitted, that report is not considered by the District Level Committee in the right perspective and the proposals of those petitioners are also rejected. The District Level Committee rejected the proposals of some of the petitioners, solely on the ground that the extent of the land owned and possessed by them was small and the loan amount secured by them from the bank was disproportionate to the extent of the land. While rejecting the claim of some of the petitioners on this ground, the District Level Committee appears to have accepted the claims of some others whose lands were equally small ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2016 00:06:44 ::: wp.1188.16 20 and the loan was equal to the loan amount secured by the petitioners or was even more. We find that the action on the part of the District Level Committee in rejecting the proposals of some the petitioners on this ground, while accepting the proposals of some other similarly situated debtors/claimants is clearly arbitrary and discriminatory. We, prima facie, do not find anything in the policy laid down in the Government Resolution dated 10.4.2015 that provides that the agricultural field-property should be located only within Buldana District. Even otherwise, it is the case of the two petitioners whose proposal is rejected that their agricultural lands are situated just beyond the boundary-line of Buldana District. It appears that the claims of the two petitioners have been rejected on this count. Since the District Level Committee has not done the physical verification in respect of some of the petitioners, has not favourably considered the report as regards the physical verification in respect of some petitioners in a proper manner and since the claim of some petitioners have been rejected on the ground that the loan amount was disproportionate to the extent of the land possessed by them, while accepting the proposals of similarly situated debtors/claimants, the impugned order is bad in law. In our view, it would be necessary, in the circumstances of the case, to set aside the order of the District Level Committee, so far as the petitioners are concerned and direct the District Level Committee to reconsider their cases, in accordance with law. It would not be proper to consider setting aside the entire order of the District Level ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2016 00:06:44 ::: wp.1188.16 21 Committee as the claimants/debtors, whose proposals are accepted, are not the parties to the petitions and the petitioners have also not made any grievance against them.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petitions are partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondent no.3 District Level Committee is directed to reconsider the proposal of the petitioners in accordance with law, within four months.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2016 00:06:44 :::
wp.1188.16
22
C E R T I F I C AT E
" I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true
and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order."
Uploaded by: N.B.Sahare P.S.
Uploaded on: 16.08.2016.
::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2016 00:06:44 :::wp.1188.16 23 ::: Uploaded on - 16/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2016 00:06:44 :::