Evergreen Farmers Benefit Society vs Director Of Agriculture
2024 Latest Caselaw 12549 Ker

Kerala High Court

Evergreen Farmers Benefit Society vs Director Of Agriculture on 21 May, 2024

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
        TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
                        WP(C) NO. 11741 OF 2017


PETITIONER/S:

            EVERGREEN FARMERS BENEFIT SOCIETY
            REG.NO.C.A396/2010, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS
            SECRETARY SHRI.UDAYAPRAKASHAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O
            KUTTIKRISHNAN, PALANCHERIKALAM, NENMARA PO, KOLLENGODE,
            PIN-678506

            BY ADV SRI.K.K.ASHKAR



RESPONDENT/S:

    1       DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
            DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT AND FARMER'S
            WELFARE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033

    2       THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULUTAL OFFICER
            PALAKKAD, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN-678001

            BY SMT. THUSHARA JAMES, SR.GOVT. PLEADER




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P (C) No.11741/2017                   -2-

                                JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by a society known as 'Evergreen Farmers

Benefit Society' being aggrieved by Ext.P2 communication issued by the

Principal Agricultural Officer, Palakkad directing that if any farmer has been

granted more than one electric connection under the scheme for providing

free electricity to farmers, such additional connection / connections shall be

disconnected by intimation to the concerned officials of Kerala State

Electricity Board. According to the petitioner the direction in Ext.P2 is

contrary to earlier Government orders and the policy of the Government.

2. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The rationale

behind issuing Ext.P2 order is explained in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the

counter affidavit.

3. Having considered the pleadings in the writ petition and the

reasons which compelled the authorities to issue Ext.P2 communication, I am

of the view that Ext.P2 communication cannot be said to be against the then

policy of the Government for providing free electricity connection to the

farmers. It is clear from the counter affidavit of the 2 nd respondent that, free

electricity connection given to farmers having more than such free one

connection alone are directed to be disconnected. That apart the writ petition

is filed by a society claiming to represent the interests of farmers. No

individual farmer affected by Ext.P2 has raised a complaint against Ext.P2.

Therefore no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Writ petition fails and the

it is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

AMG

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11741/2017

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.151/16/AGRI DATED 8/11/2016

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.TA (2)6247/16 DATED 20/12/2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.TA(2) 41755/16 DATED 29/7/2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT