Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K.Hanumakka, vs Union Of India, on 26 March, 2021
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.5505 of 2021
ORDER:
The petitioners are farmers, who had paid crop insurance premium
to the 4th and 5th respondents through the 3rd respondent. It is the claim
of the petitioners that even though they have suffered huge losses on
account of rains, the 4th and 5th respondents were not paying appropriate
compensation, which would enable the petitioners to discharge the crop
loans taken by them from the 3rd respondent. In view of the above, the
petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking a Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 to 5 in not releasing
crop insurance amount to them, as per the premium paid by them.
2. It is clear that the compensation, if any, would have to be
paid by respondents 4 and 5 as they are the Insurance Companies, which
had taken the insurance premium from the petitioners. Respondent No.4
is a private insurance company and respondent No.5 is a branch office of
respondent No.4 situated at Ananthapuramu, which are neither controlled
by the State nor owned by the State.
3. On a query of how a writ petition would be maintainable
against such private entities, Sri Seshadri Goalla, learned counsel for the
petitioners, would submit that any private organization, which undertakes
public function, would be part of the State and as such respondents 4 and
5 are part of the State and the writ petition would be maintainable. He
relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Life
Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd., and Ors.,1; N.
(1986) 1 SCC 264
2 RRR,J.
W.P.No.5505/2021
Jayaprakasam v. Inspector of Police2; and ABL International Ltd.,
and Anr., v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.,
and Ors.,3.
4. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd.,
and Ors., a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in fact,
held that a writ petition would not be maintainable against the State or its
instrumentalities where the action of the State in a commercial transaction
are questioned.
5. In ABL International Ltd., and Anr., v. Export Credit
Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., and Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, after reviewing the further developments in law, had held that a
writ petition would be maintainable against the State even in contractual
matters and even where factual disputes are in dispute.
6. The judgment in N. Jayaprakasam v. Inspector of
Police is not related to this issue and relates to a criminal matter.
7. It is well settled that a Writ of Mandamus is a remedy
against the inaction of the State or a wrong action of the State. This
remedy is not available against a private person. However, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, over time, had expanded the scope of the term "State" to
include the State itself and its instrumentalities, and even private bodies in
exceptional circumstances, where a private body undertakes public
functions and duties which are akin to the functions of the State and its
instrumentalities.
8. In the present case, the respondents are private parties,
which are in the business of insurance. These activities cannot, by any
(2019) SCC Online Mad. 2266
(2004) 3 SCC 553
3 RRR,J.
W.P.No.5505/2021
stretch of imagination, be termed as public functions, which would bring
these organizations within the ambit of the term "State". In the
circumstances, the writ petition is not maintainable
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
26th March, 2021
Js
4 RRR,J.
W.P.No.5505/2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.5505 of 2021
26th March, 2021
Js
