Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s).
“ i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s) in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to reconsider the payment of insurance claim
to the farmers of districts of West Champaran, East Champaran, Muzaffarpur, Sitamarhi and Sheohar under the Rainfall Insurance Scheme
(Kharif-2020) which has been arbitrarily and dishonestly denied to them in spit of the fact that as per the Weather Report the farmers are entitled
for damages caused due to rainfall as insured under the policy;
ii) For issuance of appropriate Writ(s) in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents particularly, the Respondent Insurance Company
to discharge their legal obligation in terms of Rainfall Crop Insurance Scheme for Kharif Crop during 2020 for ensuring the payment of claim to the
farmers of West Champaran, East Champaran, Muzaffrpur, Sitamarhi and Sheohar which has been denied to them in utter discrimination;
iii) For issuance of appropriate direction to the Respondents, Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. For playing compensation for
actual crop loss to insured farmers during Kharif Season of 2020 which was covered under the Rainfall crop insurance Scheme (Kharif 2020) with
interest from the date of claim till the date of payment as the claim of the farmers of the district of West Champaran, East Champaran, Muzaffrpur,
Sitamarhi and Sehohar has been wrongly denied;
iv) For declaration that the Respondent had floated the scheme of Rainfall Insurance Scheme Kharif, 2020 with an object to provide risk
management aid to the farmers but have arbitrarily denied the benefits to them; or any other relief or reliefs as it may be deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.â€
Learned counsel for the State opposes the petition stating that the petition is misconceived; raises disputed question of fact; is not
in public interest; and that the issue can be best resolved at the local level by the appropriate authorities.
After the matter was heard for some time, finding the Bench not to be agreeable with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel for the petitioners, under instructions, states that petitioners shall be content if a direction is issued to the authority concerned i.e.
(Respondent No. 12, The Regional Manager, M/s Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., 1st Floor, Yunus Corporate, S. P. Verma Road
Patna-800001) to consider and decide the representation which the petitioners shall be filing within a period of four weeks from today for
redressal of the grievance(s).
Learned counsel for the respondents states that if such a representation is filed by the petitioners, the authority concerned shall consider and
dispose it of expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months from the date of its filing along with a copy of this order.
Statement accepted and taken on record.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. N. Jeevaraj Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka & Ors, (2016) 2 SCC 653, paragraphs 34 to
38 observed as under:-
“34. The learned counsel for the parties addressed us on the question of the bona fides of Nagalaxmi Bai in filing a public interest litigation. We
leave this question open and do not express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the High Court in this regard.
35. However, we note that generally speaking, procedural technicalities ought to take a back seat in public interest litigation. This Court held in
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. [Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504] to
this effect as follows: (SCC p. 515, para 16)
“16. The writ petitions before us are not inter parties disputes and have been raised by way of public interest litigation and the controversy
before the court is as to whether for social safety and for creating a hazardless environment for the people to live in, mining in the area should be
permitted or stopped. We may not be taken to have said that for public interest litigations, procedural laws do not apply. At the same time it has to
be remembered that every technicality in the procedural law is not available as a defence when a matter of grave public importance is for
consideration before the court.â€
36. A considerable amount has been said about public interest litigation in R&M Trust [R&M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group,
(2005) 3 SCC 91] and it is not necessary for us to dwell any further on this except to say that in issues pertaining to good governance, the courts
ought to be somewhat more liberal in entertaining public interest litigation. However, in matters that may not be of moment or a litigation essentially
directed against one organisation or individual (such as the present litigation which was directed only against Sadananda Gowda and later Jeevaraj
was impleaded) ought not to be entertained or should be rarely entertained. Other remedies are also available to public spirited litigants and they
should be encouraged to avail of such remedies.
37. In such cases, that might not strictly fall in the category of public interest litigation and for which other remedies are available, insofar as the
issuance of a writ of mandamus is concerned, this Court held in Union of India v. S.B. Vohra [Union of India v. S.B. Vohra, (2004) 2 SCC 150:
2004 SCC (L&S) 363] that: (SCC p. 160, paras 12-13)
“12. Mandamus literally means a command. The essence of mandamus in England was that it was a royal command issued by the King's Bench
(now Queen's Bench) directing performance of a public legal duty.
13. A writ of mandamus is issued in favour of a person who establishes a legal right in himself. A writ of mandamus is issued against a person who
has a legal duty to perform but has failed and/or neglected to do so. Such a legal duty emanates from either in discharge of a public duty or by
operation of law. The writ of mandamus is of a most extensive remedial nature. The object of mandamus is to prevent disorder from a failure of
justice and is required to be granted in all cases where law has established no specific remedy and whether justice despite demanded has not been
granted.â€
38. A salutary principle or a well-recognised rule that needs to be kept in mind before issuing a writ of mandamus was stated in Saraswati
Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India [Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India, (1974) 2 SCC 630] in the following words:
(SCC pp. 641-42, paras 24-25)
“24. … The powers of the High Court under Article 226 are not strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are
subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the well-recognised rule that no writ or order in the nature of a mandamus would issue when there is no
failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general rule,
which is subject to certain exceptions, applied by us, as it is in England, when a writ of mandamus is asked for, could be stated as we find it set out
in Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Edn.), Vol. 11, p. 106:
‘198. Demand for performance must precede application.â€"As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has
known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by
evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that that demand was
met by a refusal.’
25. In the cases before us there was no such demand or refusal. Thus, no ground whatsoever is shown here for the issue of any writ, order, or
direction under Article 226 of the Constitution.â€
As such, petition stands disposed of in the following terms:-
(a) Petitioners shall approach the authority concerned within a period of four weeks from today by filing a representation for redressal of the
grievance(s);
(b) The authority concerned shall consider and dispose it of expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order preferably within a period of four
months from the date of its filing along with a copy of this order;
(c) Needless to add, while considering such representation, principles of natural justice shall be followed and due opportunity of hearing afforded
to the parties;
(d) Equally, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to take recourse to such alternative remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law;
(e) We are hopeful that as and when petitioner takes recourse to such remedies, as are otherwise available in law, before the appropriate forum,
the same shall be dealt with, in accordance with law and with reasonable dispatch;
(f) Liberty reserved to the petitioners to approach the Court, should the need so arise subsequently on the same and subsequent cause of action;
(g) We have not expressed any opinion on merits. All issues are left open;
(h) The proceedings, during the time of current Pandemic- Covid-19 shall be conducted through digital mode, unless the parties otherwise mutually
agree to meet in person i.e. physical mode;
The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
