Telangana High Court
WP/26038/2005 of Mudigonda Mandal Adarsha Rythu Club Vs The Govt. of A.P. rep by its on 26 December 2006
Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO: 26038 of 2005 Dated: 26-12-2006 Between: Mudigonda Mandal Adarsha Rythu Club, Mudigonda, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Secretary Agriculture, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO: 26038 of 2005
Between:
Dated: 26-12-2006
Mudigonda Mandal Adarsha Rythu Club,Mudigonda, Khammam District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
The Government of Andhra Pradesh,Rep., by its Secretary Agriculture,Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others.
.....RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO: 26038 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 petitioner.
It is represented by the learned counsel for the respondents 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.)