Late Dr Limbajirao Muktarao ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3146 Bom

                                                   1                             WP -  4756-2017

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 4756 OF 2017

Late Dr. Limbajirao Muktarao Pansambal
Dudh Yavasayik Saha. Dudh Sansthancha,
Dudh Utpadak Va Purvatha Sahakari Sangha
Maryadit, Shirur (Ka), Tq. Shirur (Ka),
Dist. Beed Through its Chairman
Shri Dnynesh Rameshrao Pansambal                                        .. Petitioner

     VS.

1]  The State of Maharashtra,
      Through its Secretary,
      Revenue and Forest Department,
      Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32

2]  The Divisional Commissioner,
      Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad

3]   The Collector,
       Beed, Dist. Beed                                                 .. Respondents

                                    ----
Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the respondent/State
                                    ----

                                      CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                                 MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

                                      DATE    : 14-06-2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :


1.                Rule.     Rule   made   returnable   forthwith.     Heard   finally   by 

consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner participated in a welfare project.

2 WP - 4756-2017

3. The case of the petitioner is that it is a co-operative society

registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

In-fact, it is a milk co-operative society registered and functional at taluka

level. One of the objects of the petitioner society is to encourage and

assist agriculturists in purchasing animals and thereafter raise them and

collect milk and provide it to the apex society. The agriculturists are also

provided with fodder so that they can maintain their cattle.

4. The petitioner refers to the acute drought situation and

virtually a famine in Beed, Latur and Osmanabad districts of the

Marathwada region. This was the situation in 2015-2016. In the

circumstances, it became very difficult for the agriculturists to maintain

and look after the cattle. They were brought to the cattle camp and

which the petitioner organized with the assistance of the State. One of

the conditions, based on which the petitioner and a society like it are

eligible to draw financial aid and support from the State, is that they

maintain at this camp, minimum 500 and maximum 3000 cattle. The

Collector of the district is empowered to relax this condition to the extent

of 250. The petitioner submits that having responded and duly

participated in the scheme and maintained the required number of cattle,

it was expected that the ex-gratia payment / financial assistance would

be duly disbursed.

3 WP - 4756-2017

5. The petitioner has annexed to the petition the relevant

documents including report of inspection of the camp held by the

petitioner. The petitioner started the camp from November - 2015 and

maintained it from its own funds. The petitioner submits that on the

date of impugned order, there were indeed 500 cattle and the minimum

requirement was satisfied. There was some reduction in number of cattle

because of untimely rainfall. Secondly, the cattle suffered from a disease.

Therefore, the number of cattle went below 500. The preventive

measures were started. The farmers took their cattle to their homes for

treatment and again brought them back. Therefore, for this period, the

strength of cattle was reduced below 500 but never went below 250.

It remained at more than 400.

6. The Collector was approached by the petitioner and by

inviting his attention to all the documents, he was requested to

favourably consider the proposal for financial assistance / ex-gratia

payment. The petitioner also approached the Divisional Commissioner

and who has accepted the request of the petitioner and recommended to

the State to release the amounts.

7. It is in these circumstances, that Mr. Salunke, leaned counsel

appearing for the petitioner would rely upon the terms and conditions of

the Government Resolution. He would submit that during certain period,

4 WP - 4756-2017

the number of cattle went below 500 but it was nobody's case that the

camp was not held or not functional or the cattle were not maintained by

the petitioner at all. This is not a case of any fraud or a deliberate and

intentional act of the petitioner in trying to extort money from the State

but this is a legitimate claim.

8. Learned A.G.P. on the other hand relies upon the affidavit-in-

reply in which a categorical statement is made that there is a

communication / order of the Collector dated 08/01/2016 intimating all

the cattle camp owners that if the number of animals is found to be less

than 500, payment of that day will not be disbursed.

9. She therefore submits that factually, the payment to be made

is ex-gratia. There is no right created in the petitioner by law. In these

circumstances, she would submit that the Petition be dismissed.

10. After having heard both sides and perusing with their

assistance, the Petition, the reply affidavit as also the rejoinder / counter

reply, we are of the opinion that the petitioner's case deserves to be

considered for release of the ex-gratia payment. The condition of

minimum number of 500 animals on the own showing of the State was

relaxed and upto 250 animals. In that regard, paragraph no.7 of the

5 WP - 4756-2017

affidavit-in-reply is clear. There was indeed an order dated 16/11/2015

which mentions that this condition of minimum number of animals has

been relaxed upto 250 and bills of the cattle camp having maintained this

number of cattle / animals would be paid in terms of the amount

mentioned therein.

11. True it is that there is a subsequent order on 08/01/2106.

However, the Government may say so, but the order dated 16/11/2015 is

applicable to the present petitioner. In the affidavit-in-reply, there is no

denial of a factual statement by the petitioner that its camp was

functional from November - 2015. If indeed it was so functional, then,

the subsequent variation or change in the Scheme should not work to the

detriment of the petitioner. The number of cattle may go down below

the requisite number but the entire payment cannot be withheld.

Secondly, there are reasons assigned for the reduction. Thirdly, the

petitioner participated in a welfare measure initiated pursuant to the

exercise of the executive power vesting in the State. Article 162 of the

Constitution was invoked and the public was invited to assist the State.

Hence, there was a definite assurance or promise of reimbursement of

the expenses of the cattle camp albeit a conditional one. If they are

fulfilled then the denial is definitely arbitrary and unjust. A right has

accrued on account of the Government Resolution.

6 WP - 4756-2017

12. The petitioner's case could have been considered

sympathetically, particularly, after a positive recommendation from the

Divisional Commissioner. We are not therefore expressing any opinion

and in general terms on the entitlement of those cattle camp owners in

whose case, the condition of minimum number of cattle was held to be

not satisfied because of the subsequent Government resolution.

13. Once the petitioner has placed its case and for sympathetic

consideration of the State, namely, that the cattle were always

maintained at the camp, they were 500 in number, but at one stage,

firstly on account of untimely rainfall and secondly on account of a

epidemic or a serious disease, temporarily, the cattle were taken away

and again brought back, then, we have no hesitation in concluding that

the petitioner's claim of payment of Rs.18,63,610/- cannot be termed as

illegal. That claim should have been honoured. It is also backed by the

records and endorsed by the statutory authorities. The petitioner has

therefore rightly relied upon the communication from the Commissioner

dated 20/05/2016 annexure "G" to the Petition. In that communication

at page 60 of the paperbook, the Commissioner has informed the District

Collector, Beed that the petitioner's cattle camp had been set up. This

cattle camp was set up from 20/01/2016. This cattle camp satisfies all

the requirements stipulated in the Government Resolution dated

7 WP - 4756-2017

20/08/2015. The Commissioner confirms that the minimum number was

reduced but only because of the disease and it was contagious. For the

treatment of that disease, the cattle were taken away for certain period.

It is in these circumstances and when the payments of the petitioner's

bills for substantial period have been cleared, then the Commissioner was

of the opinion that rest of the amount be also released.

14. We do not see any denial of this factual position and

emerging from the communication of the Commissioner.

15. As a result of the above discussion, this Writ Petition

succeeds. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B).

16. The sum of Rs.18,63,610/- shall be released as expeditiously

as possible and within a period of two (2) months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order, failing which it will carry simple interest at

the rate of 6% per annum, which shall be till the date of disbursement of

the amount.

        [MANGESH S. PATIL]                               [S.C. DHARMADHIKARI]
            JUDGE                                                     JUDGE

arp/