Kailash Chhagan Chaudhari vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1040 Bom

                                                                          pil66.16
                                        -1-


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 66 OF 2016




 Kailash Chhagan Chaudhari
 Age 49 years, Occ. Agriculture
 R/o. Khedi (Avhane),
 Tq. and District Jalgaon
 PAN No. AIZPC3192J                                    ...Petitioner

          versus


 1.       The State of Maharashtra
          through its Secretary
          Co-operation and Textile
          Department, Mantralaya,
          Mumbai 32.

 2.       The State of Maharashtra
          through its Principal Secretary
          Revenue and Forest Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

 3.       The Commissioner for Co-operation
          and the Registrar, Co-operation
          Department, Maharashtra State
          PUNE

 4.       The Commissioner,
          Directorate of Agriculture,
          Maharashtra State,
          PUNE

 5.       The Chief General Manager
          National Agricultural and Rural
          Development Bank,
          Regional Office, PUNE

 6.       The Divisional Joint Registrar
          Co-operative Societies, Nashik
          District Nashik

 7.       The District Deputy Registrar
          Co-operative Societies, Jalgaon


::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2017 00:57:24 :::
                                                                                  pil66.16
                                        -2-

          District Jalgaon

 8.       The District Collector, Jalgaon
          District Jalgaon

 9.       The Managing Director,
          Jalgaon District Central Co-operative
          Bank Limited, Head Office
          Ring Road, Jalgaon
          District Jalgaon

 10.      The Chairman,
          Jalgaon District Central Co-operative
          Bank Limited, Head Office
          Ring Road, Jalgaon
          District Jalgaon                                    ...Respondents


                                        .....
 Mr. V.P. Patil, advocate for the petitioner
 Mr. A.B. Girase, Government Pleader, for respondents 1 to 4 & 6 to 8.
 Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate for respondent No.9
 Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi, advocate for respondent No.10.
                                        .....

                                                CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
                                                        V. K. JADHAV, JJ.

Date of Reserving the Judgment : 09.03.2017

Date of pronouncing the Judgment : 27.03.2017

JUDGMENT (PER V.K. JADHAV, J.):-

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the

consent of the parties.

pil66.16

3. By way of this public interest litigation, the petitioner is seeking

following directions against the respondents:-

"A) This Hon'ble Court by way of appropriate writ, order or

directions in the like nature be pleased to direct the

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take immediate steps regarding

grant of benefit of scheme of re-schedulement of Co-

operative loan as well as stay to the recovery by the Co-

operative bank from the farmers as per the Government

Resolution dated 11.3.2016 published by Co-operation and

Textile department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and further be

pleased to direct the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 District

Central Co-operative bank to grant benefit of Government

Resolution to all the farmers as well as those who have

taken crop loans for Banana crop, Tissue loan etc.

B) This Hon'ble court by way of appropriate writ, order or

directions, in the like nature be pleased to direct the

respondent No.2 Principal Secretary, Revenue department

to initiate enquiry into the matter of assessment regarding

drought situation and be pleased to further declare

Dharangaon Taluka as well as other Talukas in Jalgaon

district as drought affected."

pil66.16

4. Brief facts giving rise to the present public interest litigation are

as follows:-

The Government of Maharashtra has taken a decision in

respect of re-schedulement of crop loan and stay to the recovery of

loans in the drought affected area of the State of Maharashtra and

accordingly issued a Government Circular dated 11.3.2016 in this

regard. As per the said circular dated 11.3.2016, Kharip and Rabbi

Seasons of the year 2015-16, the villages wherein Anewari is less

than 50 paise, benefit of the said scheme for re-schedulemenet of

loans advanced by the Co-operative banks to such farmers and stay

to the recovery of loan has been granted. In this P.I.L. the petitioner

has raised his grievance about discriminatory implementation of the

said circular in Jalgaon district, particularly in Dharangaon Taluka.

According to the petitioner, though there is no adequate rainfall and

there is drought situation in Jalgaon district, the concerned

department under the political influence and due to bias mind, has

not declared the entire Dharangaon Taluka as drought affected

Taluka. It has also alleged that due to personal conflict between the

concerned Minister, survey was not conducted properly. In

consequence of which Dharangaon Taluka is not declared as

drought affected area though adjacent Talukas are declared as

pil66.16

drought affected. The respondent authorities have failed to

implement the said scheme introduced by the Statement

Government, in proper manner. Even though the farmers of Banana

crop grower have been facing great difficulties due to drought

situation the respondent authorities have misinterpreted the said

scheme and deprived those farmers from getting benefit of the said

scheme. The respondent bank is playing with the lives of such

farmers in not granting benefit of the scheme introduced by the State

Government.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is

Sarpanch of village Khedi, Tq. and district Jalgaon. The petitioner

came to be elected as Director of Agriculture Produce Market

Committee, Jalgaon and later on as Vice Chairman of the said

market committee. Since January, 2016, the petitioner is requesting

Jalgaon District Central Co-operative Bank to grant benefits of

various schemes to the farmers regarding disbursement of loans and

stay to the recovery of loan for the year 2015-16. There is no

adequate rainfall and there is drought situation in Jalgaon district.

Even though there is miserable situation, particularly in Dharangaon

Taluka, the concerned department, with a bias mind, has not

declared Dharangaon Taluka as drought affected Taluka. Learned

counsel submits that due to political interference, the concerned

pil66.16

department has not properly conducted the survey in Dharangaon

Taluka and forwarded incorrect figures to the revenue department of

the State Government. Consequently, in Jalgaon Zilla some of the

Talukas are intentionally not declared as drought affected area. As

per the scheme introduced by way of Government circular dated

11.3.2016, there shall be stay to the recovery of earlier loan and the

same is to be scheduled in five years installment and fresh loan is to

be disbursed after re-schedulement. The provisions of said Circular

have been misinterpreted by Jalgaon District Central Co-operative

Bank, even though the loans in respect of banana crop and tissue

culture have not been specifically mentioned in the said circular. The

respondent bank by misinterpreting the said scheme, is not granting

benefits to the farmers, who have availed the loan for banana crops

and tissues. There are heavy losses to the farmers, who are banana

growers on account of refusal on the part of Jalgaon District Central

Co-operative bank in not granting benefits of the scheme introduced

by the State Government. The learned counsel submits that the

direction may be issued to the State Government to take appropriate

legal action against the concerned respondents and also to grant

benefit of such scheme to all farmers without any discrimination.

However, due to political influence, as aforesaid, a crime came to be

registered against the petitioner and his friend for having committed

offence of riot etc. in the office of Jalgaon District Central Co-

pil66.16

operative Bank, Jalgaon.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.9 submits that the

petitioner has filed the present writ petition under the garb of public

interest litigation because of personal vendetta and grudge of the

petitioner against the respondent bank. The petitioner is not member

of respondent No.9 bank. Village Khedi (Avhane) in Jalgaon district

was covered under the aforesaid scheme at the relevant time. The

petitioner was not eligible for the insurance against Banana crop for

the season 2014-15, however, the petitioner was unnecessarily

claiming insurance benefits for the said crop and pressurizing the

bank authorities. The petitioner had started agitation against the bank

and entered in the bank forcibly with some agriculturists and

destroyed furniture, valuable documents of the bank and created

terror in the staff members of the Bank. He has also caused damage

to the chair and table of the Managing Director. Thus, a complaint

was lodged with Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon and as such crime

No. 9 of 2016 came to be registered against the petitioner on

12.01.2016 for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147,

353, 427 and 506 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 7 of the Prevention of

Damage to Public Property Act. Learned counsel submits that the

petitioner has thus preferred this petition to counter blast the said

case and out of personal grudge and vendetta against the

pil66.16

respondent Bank.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.9 bank submits that the

Government of Maharashtra has taken decision on 11.3.2016 for

reschedulement of crop loan and stay to the recovery of loan against

the agriculturists and as per the circular 16.4.2016, the responsibility

of implementation of the said circular rests upon the Commissioner

for Co-operation and Coordinator of the State Level bankers

Committee, Bank of Maharashtra, Pune. However, the petitioner,

instead of approaching the said committee for redressal of the

grievance, has filed the present petition under the garb of public

interest litigation.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.9 Bank submits that

the circular dated 11.3.2016 is applicable to the villages, where

Kharip and Rabi season anewari is less than 50 paise and it is not

applicable to Bagayati crops like Banana and Tissue culture. In the

last two seasons i.e. 2014-15 and 2015-16, total 89 villages of

Dharangaon are declared as drought affected where anewari is less

than 50 paise and thus, the said villages are getting benefits of the

aforesaid Government scheme. As per the Government circular

dated 11.3.2016, the respondent bank has given reschedulement of

loan to 3469 farmers for the loan of Rs.15.23 Crores and also

pil66.16

disbursed an amount of Rs.699.89 Crores as crop loan in the district

to 98240 farmers. There is no single complaint of any farmer for non

receipt of crop loan. The petitioner has not annexed any complaint to

this petition. The petitioner has made wild and baseless allegations

without any proof. As per the Government policy, the crop financed

under Kharip and rabbi seasons are to be rescheduled in 5 yearly

installment where anewari is below 50 paise. The crop loan given to

perennial crops or the bagayat crop like Banana, Tissue culture

having sugarcane which are not dependent on the rainfall, the

growers of the said crops cannot be considered as beneficiaries

under the scheme. Such farmers are not entitled to benefits of the

reschedulment of the crop loan. All the reschedulement schemes

are to be implemented as per the guidelines and circular issued by

the Reserve Bank of India. The Reserve Bank of India master

circular dated 1.7.2014 provides guidelines for such scheme. There

are discretionary powers vested in the bank in regards to adoption of

scale of finance, extension of loan period, sanction of new loans

keeping in view the total liabilities of the borrower mentioned in 1(d)

of the Circular. Fresh loans quantum has to be decided by the bank

taking into consideration the repayment capacity as per guidelines

mentioned in the said circular. In the circular (B) - Development

Loans - I) drought and (c) those who are having perennial source of

irrigation not eligible for reschedulement. In Dharangaon Taluka

pil66.16

most of the borrowers have availed crop loan for tissue culture and

banana, however, they have not utilized the said loan for tissue

culture and banana. Even the statutory auditor of the bank has made

such observations in his audit report. The respondent Bank has

followed the Government direction and the Reserve Bank of India

guidelines and the policy. There is no violation of policy decision. The

petitioner has made vague allegations in the petition, which are not

supported by any documents, data etc. The petitioner if having any

genuine grievance, can approach the State level bankers committee

and get his grievance redressed from the Forum provided.

9. We have also heard the learned Government Pleader for the

respondent Nos. 1 to 4 & 6 to 8 as well as learned counsel for

respondent No.10.

10. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by

learned counsel for the respective parties. With their able assistance,

we have perused the pleadings, grounds taken in the public interest

litigation, annexures thereto, reply filed by the concerned

respondents.

11. It appears from the submissions made in the petition that the

petitioner has made grievance against the respondent bank. It has

pil66.16

been specifically alleged in the petition that Government Circular

dated 11.3.2016 has been misinterpreted by the bank authorities and

as such, the banana crop grower farmers deprived from getting

benefits of the scheme as per the Government circular dated

11.3.2016. It has been alleged that the bank has made discrimination

amongst the farmers for the reason best known to it. It has been

also alleged in the petition that due to political influence by some of

the political leaders in the district, the revenue department has not

declared entire Dharangaon Taluka as drought affected Taluka.

There was no adequate rainfall and there was drought situation in

Jalgaon district. Thus, under the influence of then Revenue Minister,

the discrimination was made in conducting survey by the revenue

department and as such, Dharangaon Taluka was not declared as

drought affected area.

12. In the case of Gurpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 136, the Supreme Court has made the following observations:-

"I) The court must be satisfied about,

(a) the credentials of the applicant;

(b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him;

(c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved.

pil66.16

The court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests: (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions."

13. In Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. vs. Prem Chandra Mishra, reported

in (2007) 14 SCC 281, in para 10-12 and 10-13, the Supreme Court has

made the following observations:-

"10. '...12. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters- government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorised collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders, etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome

pil66.16

interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petition and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system.'"

10. '...13. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity- seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta...."

14. In the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal

and others, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402, in the concluding para 181 of

the judgment, the Supreme court issued following directions:-

"181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this Court and other courts in a number of judgments. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following

pil66.16

directions:

(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively descourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.

(2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter.

(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL.

(4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.

(5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.

(7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filling the public interest litigation.

(8) The Court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar

pil66.16

novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations."

15. On careful perusal of the averments made in the instant

petition, we find that the petition is based upon vague and indefinite

information. It also appears that the petitioner has made wild and

reckless allegations without any base, material in the from of

documents, research, collection of data etc. We also noticed that

behind the veil of P.I.L. the petitioner is trying to settle the score with

the respondent bank. The petitioner has also made wild and reckless

allegations against the political leaders with some ulterior motive.

16. On careful perusal of the documents submitted alongwith the

affidavit in reply filed by the official of respondent No.9 bank, it

appears that for last two seasons i.e. 2014-15 and 2015-16, total 89

villages in Dharangaon Taluka are declared as drought affected,

where anewari is below 50 paise and thus, those villages are getting

benefits under the above mentioned Government scheme. It also

appears that the bank has given benefit of reschedulement of loan.

The farmers in Jalgaon district have been disbursed certain amount

which is in Crores of Rupees for crop loan. The petitioner has not

annexed single complaint of any farmers of the said Taluka. Pursuant

to the instructions given by head office of the Bank, the respondent

bank has stayed recovery of the agriculture loan in the drought

pil66.16

affected villages in Jalgaon district. Respondent Bank has not taken

any coercive action for recovery of the agricultural loan in declared

drought affected villages. It also appears that the respondent Bank

has implemented the Government Circular as per the guidelines and

the circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time.

17. Thus, in the light of discussion made herein-above and in view

of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of

Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra), we are not

inclined to entertain this public interest litigation. The public interest

litigation is therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged.

18. Out of the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by the petitioner,

an amount of Rs.20,000/- be diverted to the High Court Legal

Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad and remaining amount of

Rs.30,000/- be returned to the petitioner.

        ( V. K. JADHAV, J.)                       (S. S. SHINDE, J.)

 rlj/