Telangana High Court
Vissa Kiran Kumar vs State Of Telangana on 28 September, 2021
Bench: M.S.Ramachandra Rao, T.Vinod Kumar
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
SRI M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO.290 OF 2020
O R D E R:
(Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao)
This Writ Petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation
by the petitioners in the interests of farmers of the State of Telangana
who have suffered crop losses on account of excessive and incessant
rains in the months of September and October, 2020 and seeking
extension of relief/assistance to them in the form of agricultural input
subsidy to all the affected farmers in the State of Telangana on the
ground that they have not been given any such relief/assistance. The
petitioners also complain about the inaction on the part of the
respondents in notifying crop insurance scheme and in taking
adequate steps to enable the farmers across the State of Telangana to
avail any form of crop insurance for the year 2020-21.
The relief claimed in the Writ Petition
2. The following reliefs have been sought in the Writ Petition:
(a) taking steps to enumerate and assess the extensive crop damage
that occurred across the State of Telangana due to excessive and
incessant rains in the months of September and October, 2020 and to
extend the compensation in the form of agricultural input subsidy to
all the affected farmers in the State;
HACJ & TVK,J
::2:: wp(pil)_290_2020
(b) notifying crop insurance scheme and taking adequate steps
to enable the farmers across the State of Telangana to avail any
form of crop insurance scheme for the year 2020-21 as illegal,
unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents,
(i) to immediately take steps for expeditious payment of
compensation from NDRF/SDRF under National
Disaster Management Act, 2005 to all the farmers,
including tenant farmers, across the State of Telangana,
affected by the incessant and excessive rains; and
(ii) to take steps for providing additional and appropriate
relief to the small and marginal cultivating farmers of
Telangana who suffered huge economic loss in the
absence of crop insurance coverage.
The parties to the Writ Petition
3. The State of Telangana represented by the Chief Secretary is
impleaded as the 1st respondent, State of Telangana represented by
Principal Secretary, Revenue Department is impleaded as the 2nd
respondent, State of Telangana represented by Principal Secretary,
Disaster Revenue Department is impleaded as the 3rd respondent,
State of Telangana represented by Principal Secretary,
Agriculture Department is impleaded as the 4th respondent, the
Commissioner and Director, Agriculture Department is impleaded as
the 5th respondent, the Union of India represented by it's Secretary,
HACJ & TVK,J
::3:: wp(pil)_290_2020
Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, New Delhi is impleaded
as 6th respondent and the Union of India represented by it's Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi is impleaded as 7th
respondent.
The contentions of petitioners
4. The petitioners contend that in the agriculture year 2020-21,
there were excessive rains across the country, particularly in the State
of Telangana in the months of September and October; that such rain
was disastrous to the crops which were graining / ripening or
harvesting stage at that point of time; that farmers had made
investments in raising such crops but because of the rains, they lost
most of their investments and there was crop damage in lakhs of acres
as per news reports.
5. They allege that an official Press Note was issued from the
Office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State of Telangana on
16.10.2020 stating that as per primary estimates, the State suffered a
loss of Rs.5,000 Crores due to heavy rains and flash floods, that he is
urging the Central Government to release compensation of Rs.1,350
Crores for relief measures and he had also written a letter to the
Hon'ble Prime Minister of India to extend relief to farmers of Rs.600
Crores and to take up relief and rehabilitation measures in Greater
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and other areas of Rs.750
Crores as additional assistance; thereafter an Inter-Ministerial Five
Member Central Team was deputed by the Union of India to the State
HACJ & TVK,J
::4:: wp(pil)_290_2020
of Telangana to assess the damage caused by rains and floods, and
News Reports dt.22.10.2020 indicate that the Chief Secretary of the
State of Telangana (1st respondent) informed the said Committee that
the loss suffered by different sectors was over Rs.9,420 Crores with
the agriculture sector bearing the maximum brunt. The News
Reports, according to the petitioners, published in the Hindu
newspaper dt.22.10.2020 further indicate that the 1st respondent had
stated that there was a considerable damage to public infrastructure
and the State Government had made a preliminary assessment of
damage; and while the loss of crops was estimated to Rs.8,644 Crores,
the loss to road network was around Rs.222 Crore and the loss in the
GHMC area was estimated to be Rs.567 Crores.
6. They allege that no orders or reports however came out
detailing the relief measures taken for the farmers who suffered crop
losses due to the said heavy rains either from the State Government or
from the Central Government and no funds were released by either of
these Governments for the said purpose, which resulted, according to
the petitioners, in some of the farmers burning the damaged residue
crops or committing suicides, which were widely reported.
7. The petitioners rely on a Notification No.32-7/2014-NDM-I
dt.8.4.2015 issued by the Disaster Management Division of Ministry
of Home Affairs , Union of India (7th respondent) laying down norms
of assistance from the State Disaster Relief Fund (SDRF) and
HACJ & TVK,J
::5:: wp(pil)_290_2020
National Disaster Relief Fund (NDRF) under the Disaster
Management Act, 2005 for the period 2015-2020.
8. They contend that the State of Telangana adapted the same vide
G.O.Ms.No.2, Revenue (Disaster Management.II) Department,
dt.15.06.2015; that as per the said norms, for crop loss to an extent of
33% and more due to any natural calamity, immediate relief in the
form of input subsidy has to be provided .
9. They also contend that amounts are specified for various
categories of crops, lands and land holding in item No.5 of the
Ministry of Home Affairs letter No.32-7/2014-NDM-I, dt.08.04.2015
and that the said guidelines and norms were adopted for the year
2020-21 also through Notification No.33-05/2020-NDM-1
dt.07-04-2020 issued by the said Ministry of the Government of India.
10. They contend that the State Government did not initiate process
of farm level enumeration of crop losses even after a lapse of
substantial time and in the absence of such notification and
enumeration, the farmers, including tenant farmers, were deprived of
the said assistance defeating the whole purpose of the policy of the
State Disaster Relief Fund (SDRF) and National Disaster Relief Fund
(NDRF) under the National Disaster Management Act, 2005.
11. The petitioners contend that in contrast to the apathy allegedly
shown by the State Government and Central Government to the
farmers, the State Government had come to the rescue of the people in
HACJ & TVK,J
::6:: wp(pil)_290_2020
the city of Hyderabad immediately who suffered losses due to the
same excessive rains and provided the affected households with the
relief of Rs.10,000/- each to an extent of more than Rs.600 Crores.
They contend that such support was certainly welcome, but non-
extension of the same helping hand to the small and marginal farmers
in the rural areas, is discriminatory.
12. They therefore contend that the inaction of the both State as
well as the Union Governments in adequately compensating the
farmers who suffered losses on account of the excessive rains in the
above period is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India.
13. An additional contention is also raised by the petitioner that the
Union Government had formulated a Scheme called 'Prime Minister
Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) which was launched in 2016 to extend
insurance cover to the farmers for their crops; this was done to make
good the likely loss they suffer from crop failures and crop damages
due to the incessant rains or pest attacks or seed failure and any other
natural calamities like cyclones and floods; till 2019-20 the State
Government used to issue Notification in the month of May i.e. before
the start of Kharif season notifying the Mandal / Village wise crops
under the insurance scheme; the farmers who take crop loans from the
scheduled banks used to be automatically covered under the scheme
as their share of premium used to be deducted from the loan amount
granted to them; the Central and State Governments used to pay the
HACJ & TVK,J
::7:: wp(pil)_290_2020
remaining premium amount; and non-loanee farmers, particularly
tenant farmers, also used to pay their share of premium separately
with the assistance of Agriculture Extension Staff so as to get the
coverage.
14. They contend that for the year 2020-21 the Government of
India had taken a decision to make the said insurance scheme entirely
optional for the farmers; as a result, both loanee and non-loanee
farmers had to choose the scheme and company which would insure
them against the crop losses and also pay the total premium to the
companies on their own; such a decision was taken by the Union
Cabinet in February, 2020; but this was not immediately
communicated to the farmers in the State and the State Government
did not take any alternative measures to build awareness among the
farmers or to ensure coverage of maximum number of farmers in the
insurance schemes available.
15. They allege that the loanee farmers also did not know that they
were not being covered under the said scheme and the State
Government did not notify the crop insurance scheme for 2020-21 and
had not given any publicity of the said fact among farmers, because of
which majority of the farmers in the State of Telangana did not take
any insurance coverage for their crops for 2020-21.
16. They allege that no communication or publicity was done by
the State Government among the farmers about the lack of any
HACJ & TVK,J
::8:: wp(pil)_290_2020
insurance cover for the agriculture year 2020-21 and the scheme
PMFBY being optional and voluntary.
17. They contend that in the light of this, when heavy rains
occurred in the months of September and October of 2020 and caused
irreparable damage to the crops, the farmers were left remediless,
resulting in at least some of them committing suicides; and had they
got the benefit of insurance, there would not have been suffering or
damage or loss caused to the farmers.
18. According to petitioners, both the State and Central
Governments completely abandoned the responsibility of ensuring the
insurance coverage for the crops and this inaction on their part is
arbitrary and illegal and violates the right to life of lakhs of framers
under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Stand of the Union of India ( respondents 6 and 7)
19. The Ministry of Agriculture of the Union of India, which was
impleaded as the 6th respondent in the Writ Petition, filed a counter
affidavit contending that it is not concerned with the relief measures
for heavy rain/flood and only the Ministry of Home Affairs is Nodal
Ministry; that it is entitled to coordinate the relief measures
necessitated by drought, hailstorm, pest attack, frost/cold wave (but
not heavy rain/flood).
20. A plea is also raised that the State of Telangana did not notify
the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) Scheme in Kharif
HACJ & TVK,J
::9:: wp(pil)_290_2020
2020 and the same was not implemented either in Kharif 2020 or in
Rabi 2020-21.
21. When pressed for the stand of the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Union of India (7th respondent), a Memo dt.7.9.2021 was filed by the
learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the said Ministry,
enclosing a copy of Communication dt.07.09.2021 sent by the said
Ministry to him.
22. The said Communication dt.7.9.2021 sent by the Deputy
Secretary to the Govt. of India, Disaster management Division,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India to the learned Assistant
Solicitor General states that:
(i) the primary responsibility of disaster management, including
disbursal of relief to affected people, rests with the State
Governments;
(ii) that the Central Government supplements the efforts of the
State Governments and provides requisite logistics and financial
support;
(iii) for providing relief to the affected people in case of 12 notified
natural disasters, the State Disaster Response Fund is placed at the
disposal of the State Governments in advance in terms of extant items
and norms;
(iv) Additional Central Assistance is provided from National
Disaster Response Fund in case of disaster of severe nature and
beyond the coping capacity of the State; that in case of such a
HACJ & TVK,J
::10:: wp(pil)_290_2020
calamity, an Inter-Ministerial Central Team is deputed to assess the
extent of damages caused by a calamity and after it submits a report to
the Central Government, additional central assistance is finally
approved by the High Level Committee subject to adjustment of 50%
of the amount balance available in the State Disaster Response Fund
of the State as on 1st April of the financial year. It also states that the
financial assistance under SDRF / NDRF in the wake of notified
natural disasters is given by way of relief and not for compensation of
loss as suffered/claimed.
23. In paras-5 to 7 of the said Communication, the following is
stated:
"5. During 2020-21, an amount of Rs.599.00 crore was
allocated under State Disaster Risk Management Fund (SDRMF)
(after recommendations of 15th Finance Commission which includes
SDRF & State Disaster Mitigation Fund (SDMF) in the ratio of 80%
and 20% respectively) consisting of Rs.449.00 crore as Central Share
and Rs.150.00 crore as State Share. The Central Share of Rs.449.00
crore has been released to the State of Telangana during 2020-21.
Taking into account the opening balance of Rs.977.67 crore as on 1st
April, 2020, as intimated by office of the Accountant General,
Telangana, the availability of funds in SDRF comes to Rs.1456.87
crore including credit of Central and State share of Rs.359.40 crore
and 119.80 respectively. As such, an amount of Rs.1456.87 crore was
available in SDRF account of State of Telangana during 2020-21 for
meeting the expenses on any notified natural disaster, including
floods.
6. Further, in the aftermath of Floods-2020, an IMCT visited
the affected areas of the State on 22-23 October, 2020 for making an
on the spot assessment of damages caused by flood-2020 and
projected an assistance of Rs.249.61 crore from NDRF. Based on the
report of the IMCT, HLC approved the admissible assistance of
HACJ & TVK,J
::11:: wp(pil)_290_2020
Rs.245.99 crore from NDRF subject to the adjustment of 50% of the
balance available in the SDRF account of the State as on 1.4.2020,
for the instant disaster as per laid down procedures.
7. Taking into account the opening balance as Rs.977.67
crore as on 1st April, 2020 in SDRF account of State of Telangana,
50% of this amount works out to Rs.488.83 crore. As the amount of
Rs.245.96 crore approved by the HLC from NDRF is less than the
50% of the balance available in the SDRF account, the net out go
from the NDRF was 'Nil' for instant calamity i.e. floods of 2020 to
the State Government. This was informed to the State Government of
Telangana on 11.02.2021."
(emphasis supplied)
24. On 13.09.2021, this Court had directed the 7th respondent to
produce the Memorandum submitted by the State of Telangana (Final
Memorandum on Damages due to Heavy Rains and Floods -
October 2020) to the Union of India and also the copy of the letter
dt.15.10.2020 addressed by the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State of
Telangana to the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India.
25. Through Memo dt.14.09.2020, the said documents have been
filed along with copy of (i) Final Recommendation of Assistance
under various heads by the Joint Secretary (MHA) and team Leader of
the Inter-Ministerial Central team; and also (ii) a letter dt.21.5.2021
addressed by the Accountant General (A &E). Telangana to the
Consultant (DM), Disaster management-I Division, Ministry of Home
Affairs, New Delhi.
26. The said Final Memorandum submitted by the State of
Telangana to the Union of India is dated 19.10.2020.
HACJ & TVK,J
::12:: wp(pil)_290_2020
It records in para 4.3.1 that the cloudburst and floods caused
severe damage to 5.97 lakh hectares of agricultural crops; that the
assessment, as per the scale of relief provided in the NDRF
guidelines, comes to Rs.552.46; that but the damage sustained by
farmers is much higher since the severity of the loss is very high; and
the monetary loss when calculated at the rate of minimum support
price for the said damaged area amounts to Rs.7219.5 Crores; and
such amount is required to provide input subsidy.
In Annexure-6 of the said Memorandum, while dealing with the
measure of assistance for agriculture input subsidy, a tabular
statement is given by the State of Telangana to the Union of India
setting out the names of the affected Districts, the total agricultural
area affected, the total agricultural area where crop loss is more than
33% and the break-up of the assistance sought for rain-fed crops,
irrigated crops and perennial crops.
27. The letter dt.15.10.2020 addressed by the Hon'ble Chief
Minister of the State of Telangana to the Hon'ble Prime Minister of
India mentions that extensive damage to crops occurred on account of
excessive rains in 18 out of 33 Districts in the State of Telangana and
crops over 2.04 lakh hectares standing of paddy crop, and over 3.10
lakh hectares of other crops were affected. A request was made by the
Hon'ble Chief Minister to the Hon'ble Prime Minister to provide
assistance to an extent of Rs.1,350 Crores (Rs.465 Crores for relief to
HACJ & TVK,J
::13:: wp(pil)_290_2020
farmers and Rs.885 Crores for immediate restoration relief and
rehabilitation of physical infrastructure).
28. The Final recommendation of Assistance under various heads
made by the Joint Secretary (MHA) and team Leader of the Inter-
Ministerial Central team deputed by the Union of India to assess the
losses after the deluge in September and October, 2020 recommended
under the head 'Agriculture and Horticulture Input Subsidy'
assistance of Rs.188.23 Crores as against Rs.595.05 Crores sought by
the State of Telangana as part of the total assistance of Rs.256.39
Crores recommended.
29. In the letter dt.21.5.2021 addressed by the Accountant
General (A &E). Telangana to the Consultant (DM), Disaster
management-I Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi the
following table is given :
"Information in respect of SDRF and NDRF Account
Of the State for the year 2020-21
Name of State: Telangana
(Rs. in crore)
1 Opening balance in SDRF Account (both SDRF and NDRF) 977.67
as on 01.04.2020, as reflected in the Finance Account
2 Amount released to State Government by GOI under SDRF 449.00
during the year 2020-21 (Central Share)
3 State Share's of SDRF credited into this account by the State 149.67
Government during the year 2020-21 (State Share)
4 Interest accrued on investment made out of SDRF, if any ..
5 Amount released to State by GOI under NDRF during the
year 2020-21, credited if any
5(a) Amount credited into SDRF by Secretary & CEO Telangana 1004.82(#)
and Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board,
Hyderabad
6 Total amount available with State Government at the end of 2581.16
the Financial year (1+2+3+4+5+5(a))
HACJ & TVK,J
::14:: wp(pil)_290_2020
7 Expenditure reported (out of SDRF/NDRF) by State (*)
Government during the financial year 2020-21, (as reflected in
the Finance Account)
8 Balance amount available with the state at the end of the (*)
Financial year, as on 31.03.2021(6-7) (as reflected in the
Finance Account)
(#) An amount of Rs.1,004.82 crore was credited into SDRF during
April 2020 by Secretary and CEO, Telangana Building and Other
Construction Workers Welfare Board, Hyderabad without following
proper accounting procedure. The issue is being taken up with the
State Government for necessitating action to transfer the amount as
reduction of expenditure to the Head of Account under which the
expenditure was initially booked.
(*) As the Finance Accounts for the financial year 2020-21 is yet to be
finalised, the expenditure reported and the balance amount is not indicated."
30. The learned Asst. Solicitor General of India thus refuted the
allegations of the State of Telangana that there was no crop loss
warranting release of relief/assistance as Agriculture Input Subsidy
and that the Union of India had denied funds to the State of
Telangana.
The stand of the State of Telangana
31. One counter dt.06.04.2021 and an additional counter
dt.13.09.2021 were filed by the State of Telangana through its
Secretary, Agriculture Department.
32. In the counter affidavit dt.6.4.2021, while admitting that during
2020 rainy season, there was no doubt widespread heavy rains all
across the State and also in the country, it is stated that the State has
introduced Rythu Bandhu Scheme and Loan Waiver Scheme and from
2018 onwards had introduced Rythu Bima Scheme (insurance
scheme) and also providing seed subsidy.
HACJ & TVK,J
::15:: wp(pil)_290_2020
33. It also admitted in the counter affidavit in para 10 that as per
input subsidy, crop relief that can be extended per acre for rain-fed
crops is Rs.2,700/- per acre and for irrigated crops, it is Rs.5,400/-.
34. However, it was denied that the State Government had not
taken any steps to provide any relief to the farmers of the State. It is
stated that it had taken up immediate advisory measures to the farmers
through extension functionaries and also electronic and print media.
35. It is contended that there could be several reasons for certain
farmers committing suicides which are reported in newspapers such as
indebtedness, lack of loan facilities, etc.
36. It is also contended that National Crime Records Bureau
(NCRB) reported during September, 2021 that the suicides of farmers
have come down compared to previous years and that this is because
the Government of Telangana had taken farmer oriented activities and
created certain irrigation facilities in the State which would otherwise
help immensely in sustaining income of the farmers.
37. The allegation of discrimination by the State Government
against small and marginal farmers while benefiting households of
Hyderabad was also denied and it is stated that such allegation has no
relevance to crop losses because there was logging of drainage
channels, water logging in low lying areas in the city of Hyderabad.
38. It is stated that the Government of India had framed PMFBY
Scheme, but it had made crop insurance optional in 2020-21
HACJ & TVK,J
::16:: wp(pil)_290_2020
agriculture year and had left it to the respective State Governments to
decide regarding implementation of the said scheme and several
States like State of Telangana had not implemented the said scheme. It
is contended that it is not mandatory for loanee farmers also as it was
in the past.
39. It is contended that the State of Telangana was a medium risk
State due to its geographic location and prevailing weather condition
since there is no coastal line; though under the PMFBY Scheme, the
Government of India had notified 18 insurance companies consisting
of 5 public sector companies and 13 private insurance companies, the
actuarial premium rates quoted by them are increasing exponentially
year after year, but claims disbursed by the companies are not
increasing and they were quoting technical reasons for avoiding
insurance payouts to increase their profits.
40. It is alleged that under PMFBY Scheme, crop loss assessment is
based on the area approach i.e., Village and Mandal level, but not at
individual level so that the actual farmer, whose crop had been
damaged, may not get insurance claim.
41. It is stated that a resolution was passed in the Legislative
Assembly of the State of Telangana requesting the Government of
India to make individual farmer as insurance unit instead of Village /
Mandal level as crop loss of individual farmer is not reflected in the
scheme.
HACJ & TVK,J
::17:: wp(pil)_290_2020
42. Certain documents relating to the agriculture year 2019-20
including the Rythu Bandhu Scheme, Agricultural Credit Loan
Waiver Scheme, 2014-15, Rythu Bima Farmers Group Life Insurance
Scheme, 2018-19 and Subsidy Seed Distribution Report of the 15th
Finance Commission, etc., are enclosed to this counter affidavit.
43. The contents of the Additional Counter Affidavit filed on
13.9.2021 will be set out after we set out the reply affidavit
dt.17.6.2021 filed by the petitioners to the counter affidavit of the
4th respondent.
Petitioner's Reply to the Counter affidavit of the State of Telangana
44. After going through this counter affidavit, the petitioners filed a
reply affidavit contending that Rythu Bandhu Scheme under which
the State Government is paying Rs.10,000/- per acre does not cover
all the farmers and it is only restricted to land owners and not to all
cultivating farmers such as tenant farmers. It is stated that the said
scheme extends support and a helping hand to the land-owning
farmers in the initial investments, but it is not adequate enough to
offset the losses being incurred by the farmers due to natural
calamities, crop loss and lack of remunerative pricing for their
produce.
45. Petitioners assert that notwithstanding the existence of such
scheme or other schemes, the State continues to have an obligation to
provide input subsidy to farmers whose crops are damaged due to
HACJ & TVK,J
::18:: wp(pil)_290_2020
natural calamities like the incessant rains in October, 2020 and the
obligation under Disaster Management Act, 2005 to provide relief to a
particular section of farmers who suffered a specific loss cannot be
offset by a general scheme which provides support to various sections
of farmers who have not suffered that specific loss.
46. It is stated that the aspect of creation of irrigation facilities in
the State does not address the specific grievance raised by the
petitioners in the Writ Petition and the same is not relevant to the
issue raised.
47. It is contended that Rythu Bandhu Scheme provides money
towards initial investment support to all agricultural land owners
across the State; that it is a general scheme which will benefit all
agricultural land owners irrespective of occurrence of any natural
calamity or crop loss; and existence of such a scheme has no
relevance to a situation of crop loss due to incessant rains.
48. Reliance is placed on Disaster Management Act, 2005 and
specifically to Sections 12, 13, 18, 19 and 39(f) of the said Act read
with the guidelines / norms notified vide Notification No.32-7/2014-
NDM-I, dt.08.04.2015 and it is contended that the State is mandated
to provide input subsidy from State and National Disaster Response
Funds to all such farmers who suffered damage to their crops on
account of any natural calamity or disaster, such as floods, cyclones,
incessant and heavy rains and this is a specific provision in addition to
any general welfare scheme existing in the State.
HACJ & TVK,J
::19:: wp(pil)_290_2020
49. It is contended that for compliance with the provisions of the
Act, the State is duty bound to conduct necessary timely
investigations and enumeration exercises to identify the farmers and
the extent of loss they suffer; and based on the said exercise, it is
bound to extend relief to the farmers who suffered more than 33% of
the crop loss due to the said calamity.
50. It is reiterated that heavy rains and flooding which occurred in
September and October, 2020 caused extensive damage to crops and
there was no recovery of crops such as maize, cotton, jowar and paddy
which were raised by the farmers.
51. It is stated that the State had only provided the first round of
crop estimates for 2020-21 and compared it with the fourth round of
crop estimates of previous years in the material papers filed along
with its counter affidavit, but no specific date of the said estimates is
provided and those facts are not revealed to the High Court.
52. It is pointed out that the State had provided Rs.22 Crores as
input subsidy to the farmers across the State on account of crop loss
which occurred in the year 2018 due to relatively heavy rains in that
year, pursuant to the directions given in W.P. (PIL) No.54 of 2019
asking the Principal Secretary, Agricultural Department to appear
before the Court vide order dt.25.06.2019 and when the matter was
next listed on 15.07.2019, the State had stated that on 29.06.2019 by
issuing G.O.Rt.No.11, an amount of Rs.22.34 Crores was sanctioned
and was being disbursed to those agriculturists who lost their crops
HACJ & TVK,J
::20:: wp(pil)_290_2020
due to heavy rains which occurred on 11th to 23rd August, 2018; and
on 16.09.2019 compliance report has been submitted as well.
53. But, when the magnitude of rainfall and crop damage was much
higher in 2020, there ought to have been payment of input subsidy
also in the year 2020.
54. It is submitted that no amount of agronomical practices can
completely mitigate / nullify the crop loss caused due to heavy
inundation and they only reduce the loss to a limited extent and the
claim of the State that through such practices, all the crops were
brought to total normalcy was stated to be impossible and without any
basis.
55. It is contended that irrespective of existence of Rythu Bandhu
scheme, input subsidy was provided to the farmers on account of crop
loss in 2018, but there is no plausible explanation provided by the
State Government for not extending the said support for the last 2
years in case of similar natural calamities. So, the contention that
Rythu Bandhu benefits were extended does not mean that the State
can evade payment of input subsidy.
56. It is submitted by petitioner that no details or supporting
documents were placed before the Court with regard to immediate
advisory measures provided to farmers to extension functionaries and
no copies of material propagated through electronic and print media
were enclosed to the counter-affidavit.
HACJ & TVK,J
::21:: wp(pil)_290_2020
57. Petitioners contend that it is unbelievable that there is a zero
extent of crop damage after such heavy rains.
58. According to the petitioners, even as per the material submitted
by respondents, hardly 40% of the pattadars are provided with crop
loans and only 50% of the pattadars enrolled under the Rythu Bandhu
Scheme, and the explanation offered that suicides of farmers could be
because of indebtedness and not because of loss due to heavy rains,
cannot be accepted because crop damage/fall in crop yield due to
natural calamities will cause loss of expected income leading to
indebtedness,
59. It is also stated that the NCRB data relied upon by the State is
only upto September, 2020 as per their own admission and the said
data has no relevance due to incessant rains in the months of
September and October, 2020.
60. It is also contended that in its letter dt.11-02-2021, the Disaster
Management Division, Government of India clearly specified item-
wise details of the assistance approved in the form of a table in the
Annexure and the largest item in the Central Assistant approved is
Rs.188.23 crores towards Agriculture / horticulture input subsidy.
It is also contended that the letter also states in para-3 that it has been
noted that the scale of assistance sought for the damages items are at a
much higher rate than what is permissible as per the SDRF / NDRF
norms and this shows that the Government of Telangana in its
Memorandum claimed a much higher level of crop damages
HACJ & TVK,J
::22:: wp(pil)_290_2020
compared to Rs.188.23 crores and so the statement in para-11 of the
counter-affidavit that there was no substantive crop loss and the
affected crops came back to normalcy, cannot be accepted.
61. It is also contended that no details are available in the public
domain regarding how much and in what manner the said amount of
Rs.188.23 crores was spent and when the availability of funds for the
instant calamity in the State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF) is
Rs.977.67 crores, the State should explain what steps it has taken
since approval of this assistance to distribute the sanctioned input
subsidy of Rs.188.23 crores to farmers.
62. It is also contended that increase of average yields of crops in
the State from year to year pleaded by the State is a totally irrelevant
issue in the Writ Petition and even if it is accepted, farmers stands
more chance of getting insurance claims even in the case of lesser
crop damage in any year because of natural calamity as the average
yield will be higher.
63. It is also pointed out that from 2020-21, the PMFBY was
made voluntary even for the loanee farmers, but the Government of
Telangana did not issue the due notification for the scheme for Kharif
2020-21 and subsequent seasons and thus failed to make the said
Scheme operational in the State at all.
64. It is also contended that the State did not make any efforts to
create awareness with regard to this and so most of the farmers were
HACJ & TVK,J
::23:: wp(pil)_290_2020
unaware and did not pay premium for the said Scheme and thus lost
the opportunity to claim insurance benefits.
65. It is contended that it is the duty of the State to resolve any
issues with regard to PMFBY Scheme and accordingly adopt a
modified or alternative scheme, and citing technicalities, the State
cannot absolve itself from its responsibility of ensuring welfare of the
farmers in the event of crop loss due to natural calamities.
66. It is stated that though other States opted out of PMFBY
scheme, they established their own insurance scheme and provided
relief to the affected farmers, and instance is given of the Government
of Andhra Pradesh establishing YSR Free Crop Insurance Scheme,
under which Rs.1820 crores to Rs.15.15 lakh farmers for Kharif 2020
season, for the same rains that caused crops loss in Telangana.
Similar instances of some State Government Insurance Schemes in
West Bengal and Gujarat is also pointed out.
The Additional Counter Affidavit filed by the 4th respondent to the Reply
affidavit filed by Petitioners
67. In response to the above reply affidavit filed by the petitioners,
additional counter-affidavit was filed by the 4th respondent on behalf
of the State of Telangana.
68. It is stated that since the State of Telangana is committed for
the welfare of all the people in the State including the farmers, and in
the given set of facts of this case, instant PIL should not be entertained
HACJ & TVK,J
::24:: wp(pil)_290_2020
by this Court since not a single farmer/group of farmers are before this
Court ventilating their grievances.
69. According to the 4th respondent, this is because there was no
crop damage due to various agronomical practices i.e. draining of
excess water, spraying of Urea etc which are immediately taken up
including the draining of excess water in the fields and coupled with
the factor that better yields were obtained during the Kharif season.
70. It is contended that the instant PIL is a desperate attempt by the
petitioners to shake the tree so that the State is compelled to invoke
the provisions of Disaster Management Act even though the State,
after thorough diligence deemed fit that the said heavy rainfall during
the Kharif period of 2020 does not tantamount to disaster/calamity to
take up the enumeration of crop damage and to notify the same under
the Act.
71. It is stated that the PIL is not a pill for every ill and it is not a
panacea especially when the subject matter falls under the gamut of
the wisdom of the Government and the said issues fall within the
scope of governing process.
72. It is stated that suitable advisories during the natural calamities
are being given through robust extension system and they play a
pivotal role to minimize the crop loss to the farmers. It is strenuously
contended that such advisories relates to the agronomical practices
HACJ & TVK,J
::25:: wp(pil)_290_2020
immediately after heavy rains had played a crucial role in regaining
the normal condition of crops despite the heavy rains.
73. As regards the contention of petitioners regarding applicability
of Rythu Bandhu Scheme, it is stated that the petitioners are not
correct when they state that it is not meant for farmers, and all
pattedar farmers in the State are being benefitted under the said
Scheme. It is contended that the very purpose of assistance of
Rs.10,000/- per acre under the said Scheme is not only for meeting the
investment expenses but also for other purposes which the farmer is at
liberty to use; and therefore the farmer can use the said money to
offsets losses incurred by the farmers in the entire crop cultivation
activity.
74. It is contended that the provisions contained in Sections 12, 13,
18, 19 and 39(f) of the Act do not specifically provide for input
subsidy on account of crop damage, but deal with other sectors and
the petitioners were not correct in relying upon the same.
75. Some advisories issued by the Government Telangana were
filed with the additional counter as Annexures - A and B.
76. It is stated that though there was inundation during heavy rainy
days during September, October months, the water receded
subsequently; that the State had predominantly light textured soils and
the State is not prone to floods like other States having coastal areas
and when there is recession of water from inundate fields at faster
HACJ & TVK,J
::26:: wp(pil)_290_2020
pace in the State of Telangana, damage to crops would be limited and
chances for near complete revival are brighter. It is contended that
during incessant rainy days, though there was inundation of fields due
to excess water, after the rains, the water from the fields drained out
and the crops regained normalcy.
77. It is stated that in the initial counter-affidavit dt.06-04-2021
filed by 4th respondent, mention was made of only crop yield
estimates available as on that date (i.e., they were preliminary
estimates), but by the time of filing the same, 1st advance estimates
were available and the same was submitted before the Court.
However, subsequently the final advance estimates were received
from the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Telangana State,
according to which, the yield of major crops are little less 1st advance
estimates. According to the 4th (final) advance estimates, the yield of
major crops are, though, little less than those of 2019-20, are more
than those of 2018-19 in many of the crops.
78. It was admitted that Rs.22 crores was released as input subsidy
to farmers on account of crop loss which occurred to heavy rains
which occurred during 2018; that during that year, the State
Government has taken up crop enumeration and since the loss was
more than 33%, payment of input subsidy was made.
79. But in 2019-20 and 2020-21, on account of farmers awareness
programme and continuous monitoring with Districts and efforts put
in with regard to agronomical practices like draining of water etc., the
HACJ & TVK,J
::27:: wp(pil)_290_2020
crops regained normalcy and satisfactory yields were recorded. It is
also contended that the Government Press information said to have
been taken by the petitioners from the Government website is the
preliminary information on inundation and it was based on the
preliminary report submitted by the District Agriculture Officers, but
there was recession of water subsequently.
80. Explanation is offered with regard to the circumstances in
which some ryots have committed suicide.
81. It is stated that the State Government had apprised the overall
heavy rain scenario of the State to the Central Team about the
anticipated crop loss since such scenario was prevailing at the time of
heavy rains; such information was submitted to the said Team based
on the preliminary report on inundation of crop fields that happen
during incessant rainy days. However, it is contended that the
scenario later changed after recession of water due to farmers own
initiative or the Departments extension activities and normalcy of crop
stand was restored.
82. It is also pointed out that though the Government of India
approved Rs.245.96 crores from NDRF vide its letter dt.11-02-2021 to
the State of Telangana, there is no effective release of these amounts
to the State of Telangana and the same fact is evident from the same
letter. It is also contended that Rs.188.23 crores was not released for
Agriculture/ Horticulture crop damages as the said amount was not
received from NDRF.
HACJ & TVK,J
::28:: wp(pil)_290_2020
83. It is contended that though PMFBY Insurance Scheme had been
made voluntary from 2020, farmers are free to purchase any available
insurance product in the market of their choice to cover the losses, if
any; interested farmers where therefore not deprive of the opportunity
to insure their crops; and there was no obligation on the State
Government to compulsorily implement all the Schemes rolled out by
the Government of India.
84. It is contended that only 14 to 19% of the farmers enrolled
under the Crop Insurance Scheme from 2016-19 which clearly
indicates that the farmers are less inclined for enrolling in the scheme
and majority of farmers are not interested in the crop insurance.
85. It is however admitted that the State Government has released a
part of the state share premium subsidy for 2018-19 and the release of
balance state share premium subsidy for 2018-19 and state share
premium subsidy for 2019-20 is under consideration by the
Government.
Points for consideration
86. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the following
questions arise for consideration:
(a) Whether the instant PIL can be entertained by this Court ?
(b) Whether the material on record would show that there was
significant crop loss on account of incessant rains in the State of
Telangana in September and October of 2020?
HACJ & TVK,J
::29:: wp(pil)_290_2020
(c) Whether the contention of the State of Telangana that there was no
significant crop loss on account of incessant rains in the State of
Telangana in September and October of 2020 can be accepted?
(d) Whether the contention of the State of Telangana that the Union of
India did not release any funds to provide relief to farmers who
suffered crop loss on account of incessant rains in the State of
Telangana in September and October of 2020 is correct?
(e) To what relief?
Point (a)
87. In the counter-affidavit filed by the State of Telangana on
08-04-2021, no plea was raised by the 4th respondent about the
maintainability of the PIL and an effort was made to meet the
contentions of the petitioners on merits.
88. But after the petitioners filed a reply affidavit to the same on
17-06-2021, in the additional counter-affidavit filed on 13.09.2021,
this plea regarding entertaining of this Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
is raised in para-3.
89. We do not agree with the 4th respondent that since no single
farmer / group of farmers are before the High Court ventilating their
grievances about relief not being given to them on account of crop
loss caused by inundation of crops when very heavy rains occurred in
September and October, 2020, this PIL cannot be entertained.
90. The 4th respondent does not seem to understand the scope of a
PIL. It is a mechanism evolved by the Supreme Court by relaxing the
HACJ & TVK,J
::30:: wp(pil)_290_2020
concept of locus standi and broadening the traditional rule of standing
and the definition of the term 'person aggrieved'.
91. In State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal1, the
Supreme Court explained the various stages of evolution of the
concept of Public Interest Litigation. It explained :
" 41. The development of public interest litigation has been an
extremely significant development in the history of the Indian
jurisprudence. The decisions of the Supreme Court in the
1970s loosened the strict locus standi requirements to permit
filing of petitions on behalf of marginalised and deprived
sections of the society by public spirited individuals,
institutions and/or bodies. The higher courts exercised wide
powers given to them under Articles 32 and 226 of the
Constitution. The sort of remedies sought from the Courts in
the public interest litigation goes beyond award of remedies to
the affected individuals and groups. In suitable cases, the
Courts have also given guidelines and directions. The Courts
have monitored implementation of legislation and even
formulated guidelines in the absence of legislation. If the
cases of the decades of 70s and 80s are analysed, most of the
public interest litigation cases which were entertained by the
courts are pertaining to enforcement of fundamental rights of
marginalised and deprived sections of the society. This can be
termed as the first phase of the public interest litigation in
India.
42. The Indian Supreme Court broadened the traditional rule
of standing and the definition of "person aggrieved".
43. In this judgment, we would like to deal with the origin and
development of public interest litigation. We deem it
appropriate to broadly divide the public interest litigation in
three phases:
• Phase I.--It deals with cases of this Court where
directions and orders were passed primarily to protect
(2010) 3 SCC 402
HACJ & TVK,J
::31:: wp(pil)_290_2020
fundamental rights under Article 21 of the marginalised
groups and sections of the society who because of extreme
poverty, illiteracy and ignorance cannot approach this Court
or the High Courts.
• Phase II.--It deals with the cases relating to protection,
preservation of ecology, environment, forests, marine life,
wildlife, mountains, rivers, historical monuments, etc. etc.
• Phase III.--It deals with the directions issued by the
Courts in maintaining the probity, transparency and integrity
in governance."
92. After elaborating in detail in the said judgment about the
various phases, the Supreme Court also cautioned the High Courts and
laid down certain guidelines to prevent misuse of the PILs.
93. It held :
"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 directions:
(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and
effectively discourage 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.
HACJ & TVK,J
::32:: wp(pil)_290_2020
(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 filing the public
interest litigation.
(8) The Courts 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
novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed
for extraneous considerations."
94. In the instant case, the petitioners are espousing the cause of
number of farmers, who according to them suffered crop losses on
account of very heavy rains in the months of September and October,
2020 and complain of inaction by the State and the Central
Governments in granting any assistance / relief to them and coming to
their aid in their hour of need. They are also complaining about the
failure of the State of Telangana to give adequate publicity about the
Central Government making the Prime Minister Fasal Bhima Yojana
(PMFBY) introduced in 2016 being made voluntary and optional so
that farmers, both loanee and non-loanee, would have to choose the
Scheme, Insurance Company and pay the total premium, without any
contribution from the State Government, on their own; that this failure
on the part of the State Government to make it known to the farmer
HACJ & TVK,J
::33:: wp(pil)_290_2020
community that they are not being covered by the PMFBY Scheme
any longer and also the failure of the State Government to notify its
own farmer specific crop insurance Scheme, according to the
petitioners, has caused misery to the farmers who did not take any
insurance coverage for their crops for 2020-21.
95. The farmers who suffered crop losses are undoubtedly falling in
the class of poor persons and it is undeniable that a large number of
them are from marginalized sections of the society, illiterate and
vulnerable. So the issues raised by the petitioners are undoubtedly in
Public Interest. Moreover the credentials of the petitioners and their
involvement in farmers' related causes/activities and their efforts to
address the problems of the farmers have not been doubted by the 4th
respondent.
96. Therefore we are of the opinion that this plea about
entertainability of this PIL is only an afterthought raised more than 10
months after this PIL was filed and there is no substance in this
contention.
97. Accordingly, we hold on Point (a), that this PIL is certainly
entertainable by this Court.
Points (b) and (c)
We shall now consider point (b) and (c) which are :
HACJ & TVK,J
::34:: wp(pil)_290_2020
"(b) Whether the material on record would show that there
was crop loss on account of incessant rains in the State of
Telangana in September and October of 2020?"
(c) Whether the contention of the State of Telangana that
there was no significant crop loss on account of incessant
rains in the State of Telangana in September and October
of 2020 can be accepted?"
98. Before we deal with the above point, we shall first see whether
there is any dispute as to the fact that there were heavy rains on across
the State of Telangana in September and October, 2020.
99. There is a clear admission in para-9 of the counter-affidavit
filed on behalf of the 4th respondent / State of Telangana that in 2020,
'during the rainy season, there was no doubt wide spread heavy rains
all across the State of Telangana'. There is a similar admission in
para-15 of the said counter-affidavit stating 'it is a fact that there were
heavy rains, particularly during the months of September and
October, 2020 which resulted in submergence /inundation of crops
across the State.' In para-10 of the additional counter-affidavit filed
by the 4th respondent also, it is stated 'though there was inundation
during heavy rainy days during September, October months, the water
receded subsequently'.
100. From these admissions in the counter-affidavit and additional
counter-affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, there is no dispute that
there were heavy rains in the State of Telangana in the months of
HACJ & TVK,J
::35:: wp(pil)_290_2020
September and October of 2020 which caused submergence /
inundation of crops across the State.
101. The petitioners have relied upon certain Press reports and also
an official Press release on the Telangana State Portal dt.16-10-2020
and a news item reported in 'The Hindu' English daily newspaper
dt.22-10-2020 in the PIL.
102. In the Press release dt.16-10-2020 made by the State of
Telangana it is stated that 'the officials explained the losses suffered in
their Departments' jurisdiction due to heavy rains and floods. ...
Crops in 7.35 lakh acres in the State were submerged. Even if there
is 50% of damage to crops, the loss would be to the tune of Rs.2,000
crores. ... The C.M. declared that as per the primary estimates, the
State suffered Rs.5,000 crore loss due to heavy rains and flash floods.
He urged the Centre to release immediately Rs.1350 crores for relief
measures. In this regard, the C.M. wrote a letter to P.M. Sri
Narendra Modi to extend relief to farmers of Rs.600 crore ..."
103. In the news paper report of the Hindu dt.22-10-2020, it was
stated that the State Government had informed the 5 Member Inter
Ministerial Central Team deputed to Telangana to assess the damage
caused by rains and floods, that the loss suffered by different sectors
was over Rs.9,420 crores with the agricultural sector bearing the
maximum brunt. ... While the loss to crops was estimated at Rs.8,633
crore, the loss to road network was around Rs.222 crores. ..."
HACJ & TVK,J
::36:: wp(pil)_290_2020
104. When the learned Advocate General disputed that there was any
crop loss at all on account of such incessant rains, we had asked the
learned Assistant Solicitor General of India representing respondent
Nos.6 and 7 (Union of India) on 13-09-2021 to produce the State
Government Memorandum submitted to the Union of India in relation
to the damages due to rains and floods in October, 2020 by the
Revenue (Disaster Management Department) and also the letter
addressed by the Hon'ble Chief Minister for the State of Telangana to
the Hon'ble Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi ji.
105. The learned Assistant Solicitor General filed on 15-09-2021, a
Memo dt.14-09-2021 enclosing the above documents. Annexure-I to
the said Memo is a Final Memorandum on Damages due to heavy
rains and floods - October, 2020 submitted by the Government of
Telangana to the Union of India seeking financial assistance for relief
and restoration activities in the areas affected by floods caused due to
heavy rains during October, 2020.
This document contains a statement at para-4 under the heading
'Financial Assistance Required' stating :
"The continuous cloudburst and accompanying heavy
rains for 4 days caused floods in many river systems and
inundation of both urban properties and agricultural lands.
These rains and floods caused by the low pressure in the Bay
of Bengal affected all 33 districts of the State of Telangana.
..."
HACJ & TVK,J
::37:: wp(pil)_290_2020
Para-4.3 has a Heading 'Cloud Burst and Floods Damages (Sector-
wise). Para-4.3.1 deals with 'Agriculture - Input subsidy'. This para
states :
'The cloudburst and floods have caused severe damage to
5.97 lakhs ha. Of agricultural crops. The assessment as per
the scale of relief provided in the NDRF guidelines comes to
Rs.552.46 crores.
However, the damage sustained by farmers is much higher
since the severity of the loss is very high. The monetary loss
when calculated at the rate of minimum support price for the
above said damaged area amounts to Rs.7219.5 crores.
An amount of Rs.7219.5 crores is required to provide input
subsidy. The details are given in Annexure -VI, VII, VIII and
VIII-A."
In Annexure-6, dealing with assistance for Agriculture Input
Subsidy, a table is given showing with regard to each affected
District, the total agricultural area affected (in Hectares), the total
agricultural area where crop loss is more than 33% and the calculation
of the assistance sought. By way of illustration, it is indicated at
Sl.No.1 that in Vikarabad District, the total agricultural area affected
is 36,619.60 Hectares and this entire area had a crop loss more than
33%. Likewise, 15 other Districts are mentioned wherein the entire
agricultural area affected is said to have crop loss more than 33%.
There is no dispute that as per Notification No.32-7/2014-
NDM-I issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (Disaster
Management Division), Revised Norms of assistance from the State
Disaster Response Fund (SDRF) / National Disaster Response Fund
HACJ & TVK,J
::38:: wp(pil)_290_2020
(NDRF) specify that for agriculture, where crop loss is 33% and
above, input subsidy should be given at the rate of Rs.6800/- per
hectare in rainfed areas and restricted to sown areas, and Rs.13500/-
per hectare in assured irrigated areas, subject to minimum assistance
of not less than Rs.1,000/- and restricted to sown areas. Rs.18,000/-
per hectare is the input subsidy for all types of perennial crops subject
to minimum assistance of not less than Rs.2,000/- and restricted to
sown areas.
106. The letter dt.15.10.2020 addressed by the Hon'ble Chief
Minister of the State of Telangana to the Hon'ble Prime Minister of
India mentions that extensive damage to crops occurred on account of
excessive rains in 18 out of 33 Districts in the State of Telangana and
crops over 2.04 lakh hectares standing of paddy crop, and over 3.10
lakh hectares of other crops were affected. A request was made by the
Hon'ble Chief Minister to the Hon'ble Prime Minister to provide
assistance to an extent of Rs.1,350 Crores (Rs.465 Crores for relief to
farmers and Rs.885 Crores for immediate restoration relief and
rehabilitation of physical infrastructure).
107. These two documents disprove the plea of the State of
Telangana in the counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit
that though crops were affected due to heavy rains and there was
submergence, the water receded and normalcy was restored due to
adoption of agronomical practices like draining of excess water,
HACJ & TVK,J
::39:: wp(pil)_290_2020
spraying of urea, fungicides and MOP which were immediately taken
up.
108. Had this contention been true, the State Government would
have informed the Union of India not to send in the first place the
Inter-Ministerial Central team for assessing the losses, and it also
would not have submitted to the Union of India the detailed Final
Memorandum on Damages due to Heavy Rains and Floods -
October, 2021 dt.19.10.2020 with the details of damages to crops and
would not have sought assistance for providing input subsidy of
Rs.7219.5 Crores to the affected farmers.
109. We agree with the contention of the Counsel for petitioners that
no amount of agronomical practices can completely mitigate / nullify
the crop loss caused due to heavy inundation, that they might only
reduce the loss to a limited extent, and the claim of the State that
through such practices all the crops were brought to total normalcy is
not possible to accept and is without any basis. We can take judicial
notice of the fact that a crop like a cotton crop or maize crop, once
inundated, is impossible to salvage and be restored to normalcy.
110. The statistics being relied upon by the State to show only
marginal reduction of yields in 2020-21 from the previous year cannot
be relied upon because such statistics give details on a State wide
basis and include areas which were not affected by the heavy rainfall
during September and October, 2020.
HACJ & TVK,J
::40:: wp(pil)_290_2020
111. Even otherwise, a comparison of the provisional fourth advance
estimates filed by 4th respondent along with his additional counter
affidavit of area, production and yield of crops for 2019-2020, when
compared to a similar statement for 2020-21 shows that as regards
(i) paddy crop the yield in Kgs per acre decreased from 1485 kgs/per
acre to 1223 Kgs per acre and (ii) for cotton crop, the yield in Kgs
per acre decreased from 221 kgs per acre to 169 kgs per acre.
112. These figures represent the overall picture of the State and
include areas which were not affected by the heavy rainfall during
September and October, 2020. If the average crop yields have come
down in the entire State, the reduction would be even more drastic if
statistics were made available to show the difference in yields
between the areas which were affected by crop loss in 2020-21 with
the yields in 2019-2020. But the State has not done enumeration of
farmers who suffered losses though it identified the districts which
were affected and it ought to have disclosed the village and Mandal
wise details of affected areas as well.
113. The further plea in the additional counter-affidavit filed by the
4th respondent that the Government Press Release Information filed by
the petitioners is only a preliminary information on inundation, that
there was recession of water subsequently; that the State of Telangana
appraised the Central Team about the anticipated crop loss only; that
the scenario changed subsequently after recession of water due to
farmers' own initiative, the Department's extension activities and
HACJ & TVK,J
::41:: wp(pil)_290_2020
normalcy of crop was restored, cannot therefore be believed and they
are contrary to record.
114. We also reject the contention of the learned Advocate General
that though the State and its officials imagined a huge loss on the
basis of preliminary estimates, ultimately no farmer suffered crop loss
in excess of 33% as the same is contrary to record since the State of
Telangana itself gave the 'Final Memorandum on Damages Due to
Heavy Rains and Floods- October, 2020' dt.19.10.2020 to the
Union of India making the plea of assistance to farmers on account of
heavy rains and floods in September and October, 2020 on the basis
of a Final Estimate (and not a preliminary estimate), the details of
which are given by the State Government on 19.10.2020 in the above
Memorandum to the Union of India.
115. More importantly, in the letter dt.15.10.2020 addressed by the
Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State of Telangana to the Hon'ble
Prime Minister of India, it is stated that there was "extensive damage
of crops over 2.04 lakh hectares standing of paddy crop and over 3.10
lakh hectares of other crops .... I would like to request you to provide
assistance to an extent of Rs.1350 crores (Rs.465 crores for relief to
farmers and Rs.885 crores for immediate restoration, relief and
rehabilitation of physical infrastructure."
116. No subsequent communication has been admittedly addressed
to the Union of India by the State of Telangana that it had made a
mistake in assessing crop damage and loss or its magnitude on
HACJ & TVK,J
::42:: wp(pil)_290_2020
account of heavy rains and floods in September and October, 2020,
and there was no necessity for the Central Government to send any
Inter Ministerial Team to visit the State to assess the loss, that there is
no significant crop loss at all to any farmer, and the State does not
require any funding from the Central Government under the Disaster
Management Act, 2005.
117. Had the story set up in the counter-affidavit and the additional
counter-affidavit about normalcy being restored after the heavy rains
due to water recession etc been true, the State would have certainly
written to the Central Government subsequently that there is no need
for any assistance or relief to farmers in the State at all.
118. Therefore, we hold on points (b) and (c) that there is material
on record to show that there was significant crop loss on account of
incessant rains in the State of Telangana in September and October of
2020 and the contention of the State Government to the contra, cannot
be accepted.
Point (d)
119. We shall now consider point (d) :
"Whether the contention of the State of Telangana that the Union of
India did not release any funds to provide relief to farmers who
suffered crop loss on account of incessant rains in the State of
Telangana in September and October of 2020 is correct?"
120. In the Notification No.32-7/2014-NDM-I issued by the
Ministry of Home Affairs (Disaster Management Division), Union of
HACJ & TVK,J
::43:: wp(pil)_290_2020
India dt.08.04.2015 it is laid down that '50% of SDRF balance as on
31st March of the preceding Financial Year will be adjusted while
releasing the assistance from NDRF for the first disaster in a
Financial Year. In case, the same State faces another severe disaster
during the same year, no adjustment will be made while releasing
NDRF assistance'.
121. According to the learned Assistant Solicitor General the
primary responsibility of Disaster Management including disbursal of
relief to affected people rests with the State Governments and the
Central Government supplements the efforts of the State Governments
and provides requisite logistics and financial support. For providing
relief to the affected people in case of 12 notified natural disasters,
SDRF is placed at the disposal of the State Governments in advance.
Additional Central Assistance is provided from the NDRF in case of
disaster of 'severe nature' beyond the coping capacity of the State.
The additional Central Assistance is finally approved by High Level
Committee after assessment by the Inter Ministerial Central Team
after spot visit to affected areas and on the basis of Memorandum
submitted by the State Government concerned subject to adjustment
of 50% of the amount balance available in SDRF of the State as on 1st
April of the Financial Year.
122. He contends that during 2020-21, an amount of Rs.599-00
Crores was allocated under State Disaster Risk Management Fund
(SDRMF) (after recommendations of 15th Finance Commission which
HACJ & TVK,J
::44:: wp(pil)_290_2020
includes SDRF & State Disaster Mitigation Fund (SDMF) in the ratio
of 80% and 20% respectively), consisting of Rs.449-00 Crores as
Central Share and Rs.150.00 Crore as State share; that the Central
Share of Rs.449.00 crore has been released to the State of Telangana
during 2020-21; taking into account, the opening balance of Rs.977.67
crores as on 1st April, 2020, as intimated by office of the Accountant
General, Telangana, the availability of funds in SDRF comes to
Rs.1456.87 crores including credit of Central and State share of
Rs.359.40 crores and 119.80 respectively. As such, an amount of
Rs.1456.87 crores was available in SDRF account of State of
Telangana during 2020-21 for meeting the expenses on any notified
natural disaster, including floods.
123. He contends that in the aftermath of Floods-2020, an IMCT
visited the affected areas of the State on 22-23 October, 2020 for
making an on the spot assessment of damages caused by flood-2020
and projected an assistance of Rs.249.61 crores from NDRF. Based on
the report of IMCT, HLC approved the admissible assistance of
Rs.245.96 crores from NDRF subject to the adjustment of 50% of
balance available in the SDRF account of the State as on 01.04.2020
for the instant disaster as per laid down procedures.
124. He further contends taking into account, the opening balance as
Rs.977.67 crores as on 1st April, 2020 in SDRF account of State of
Telangana, 50% of this amount works out to Rs.488.83 crores. As the
amount of Rs.245.96 crores approved by the HLC from NDRF is less
HACJ & TVK,J
::45:: wp(pil)_290_2020
than the 50% of the balance available in the SDRF account, the net
out go from the NDRF was 'Nil' for instant calamity i.e. floods of
2020 to State Government. This was informed to the State
Government of Telangana on 11.02.2021.
125. He made this submission on the basis of the letter dt.07.09.2021
addressed to him by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs.
126. This version of the Union of India is somewhat corroborated
by the letter dt.21-05-2021 addressed by the Office of the Accountant
General (A & E), Telangana, Hyderabad to the Consultant (DM),
Disaster Management-I Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, New
Delhi.
This letter mentions that the total amount available with the
State Government at the end of financial year was Rs.2581.16 crores
including Rs.977.67 crores as on 01.04.2020 in the SDRF, Rs.449
crores released to the State Government under SDRF during 2020-21
(Central Share), Rs.149.67 crores being the State's share of SDRF
credited into the account by the State Government during 2020-21 and
Rs.1004.82 crores credited into SDRF by Secretary and CEO,
Telangana Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Board,
Hyderabad.
127. From this statement it is clear that the State Government had an
opening balance in the SDRF account (both SDRF and NDRF) as on
HACJ & TVK,J
::46:: wp(pil)_290_2020
01.04.2020 amounting to Rs.977.67 crores in addition to Rs.449.00
crores being the Central share released to the State Government by the
Union of India under SDRF apart from Rs.149.67 crores being the
State's share of SDRF credited into this account by the State
Government.
128. When such substantial funds are available with the State
Government to provide relief to farmers, and a major portion of it has
been released even as on 01.04.2020 by the Union of India, it is not
proper for the State Government of Telangana to contend that no
assistance was released to it by the Union of India for providing relief
to farmers, cannot be accepted.
129. In fact the Inter Ministerial Committee had recommended
Rs.188.23 crores as against Rs.595.05 crores projected by the State for
temporary measure in relation to agriculture and horticulture input
subsidy. This amount, being far less than the amount available with
the State Government already, could have been utilized by it to
provide relief to farmers.
130. The Office of the Accountant General states in its letter
dt.21.05.2021 to the Consultant (DM), Disaster Management-I
Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi that the Finance
Accounts for the Financial Year 2020-21 is yet to be finalized and the
expenditure reported and the balance amount in the SDRF and NDRF
account of the State of Telangana for the year 2020-21 is not
indicated.
HACJ & TVK,J
::47:: wp(pil)_290_2020
This implies that details of expenditure incurred by the State
Government for providing relief to farmers on account of crop losses
caused by the heavy rains in September and October, 2020 is, by
21.05.2021 not even disclosed to the Accountant General by the State
of Telangana. For what purposes the money available with the State
Government in the SDRF was utilized by it is thus not known and the
learned Advocate General also did not place any material in that
regard.
131. Therefore we hold on point (d) that since substantial amounts
were available with the State Government of Telangana in the SDRF
to provide relief / assistance to farmers who suffered crop losses
caused by the heavy rains in September and October, 2020, that such
funds included sums made available by the Union of India of Rs.977
Crores on 1.4.2020 itself, and so it cannot blame the Union of India
for not providing funds to it for the said purpose.
132. Since the Final Memorandum dt.19.10.2020 contains in
Annexure-7 details of District wise agricultural area where crop loss is
more than 33%, number of farmers other than small and marginal
farmers who would be entitled to input subsidy for agriculture, and
such details would have been compiled on basis of Village and
Mandal-wise data available with it, it is not too late for the State of
Telangana to come to their aid and provide relief to prevent distress to
such farmers.
HACJ & TVK,J
::48:: wp(pil)_290_2020
133. We also hold that the Rythu Bandhu Scheme providing
Rs.10,000/- per acre to land owner farmers cannot be pleaded as a
defence by the State to deny input subsidy to the affected farmers
because such a Scheme confers benefits only on landowner farmers
even if they did not suffer any crop loss; and agriculture input subsidy
was given to the tune of Rs.22.00 crores upon directions made by this
Court in W.P.(PIL) No.54 of 2019 in addition to the Rythu Bandhu
Scheme payment in 2018 when there was crop loss then.
134. As regards the failure of the State of Telangana to inform the
farmers in the State about the Prime Minister's Fasal Bhima Yojana
being made voluntary in 2021 is concerned, we hold that it was it's
duty to inform the farmers through its extension facilities about it so
that they may chose to take insurance individually by contracting for
the same with their own monies.
Point (e)
RELIEF:
135. Therefore the Writ Petition (PIL) is allowed; and a Writ of
Mandamus is issued to respondents 1 to 6 to:
(i) take steps in 3 months to enumerate and assess the extensive
crop damage that occurred across the State of Telangana due to
excessive and incessant rains in the months of September and
October, 2020;
HACJ & TVK,J
::49:: wp(pil)_290_2020
(ii) extend, within one month thereafter, the relief/assistance in
the form of agricultural input subsidy from NDRF/SDRF under
National Disaster Management Act, 2005 to all the farmers, including
tenant farmers, across the State of Telangana, affected by the
incessant and excessive rains; and
(iii) to take steps for providing additional and appropriate relief
to the small and marginal cultivating farmers of Telangana who
suffered huge economic loss in the absence of crop insurance
coverage within 4 months. No costs.
136. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No
costs.
_______________________________
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, ACJ
_____________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date: 28-09-2021
Svv/Vsv
