Telangana High Court
WP/19343/2005 of N.Ayyapa Reddy, Vs The Manager, Chaitanya Grameena Bank, on 26 December 2006
Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO: 19343 of 2005 Dated: 26-12-2006 Between: N. Ayyapa Reddy and 11 others ..... PETITIONERS AND The Manager, Chaitanya Grameena Bank, Komerapudi, Sathenapally Mandal, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO: 19343
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO: 19343 of 2005
Between:
Dated: 26-12-2006
N. Ayyapa Reddy and 11 others
AND
..... PETITIONERS
The Manager, Chaitanya Grameena Bank,Komerapudi, Sathenapally Mandal,Guntur District.
.....RESPONDENT
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO: 19343 of 2005
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R:
None appears for the petitioners.
It is represented by the learned counsel for the respondent thatthe issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by a decisionof the Division Bench of this Court in ANDHRA PRADESH RYTHU
SANGHAM v. UNION OF INDIA[[1]], wherein it was held as under :
“We are of the opinion that the scheme benefits thefarmer indemnifying him against the crop loss. Theamount of loan will be recovered from the insuranceamount thereby a double purpose is served. The poorcultivator is indemnified against loss and the financialinstitutions which are Co-operative Banks areindemnified against loss by the General InsuranceCorporation. This is a social security measure meant forthe benefit of rural population and benefits only thosewho taken loans from the financial institutions. In otherwords, it is limited to the class of people who are gettingsubsidized loans from such institutions who themselveshave got to be saved against the area in question. Sucha Scheme cannot be said to be in any manner,unreasonable or arbitrary.”
In view of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in the abovecase, the relief as prayed for cannot be granted.
Accordingly, following the above decision, Writ Petition isdismissed. No costs.
______________
G. ROHINI, J
Dated: 26-12-2006KLP
[1]2002 (2) ALD 486 (D.B.)