Uday Singh v. Collector Bilaspur

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 149 of 2020 Uday Singh S/o Shukhram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Kargikala, Tahsil And Police Station Marwahi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Collector Bilaspur Police Station Citi Kotwali, Thasil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

2. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Raipur Through Its Manager, Address - M.M. Silwar Plaza, 205 Second Floor, In Front Of Udyog Bhawan, Mahavir Nagar Ring Road No. 01, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. The Manager Aadim Jati Sewa Cooperative Society Maryadit Bharridand Tahsil And Police Station Marwahi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate For State :

Mr. V. R. Tiwari, Addl. A.G.

Ms. Sunita Jain, G.A.

Mr. Ayaz Naved, G.A.

Mr. Ishan Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 15/01/2020

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that he has not been paid the entire amount of Crops Insurance that he is entitled for.

2. According to the petitioner, he has two agricultural fields, both of which were insured and he had moved an appropriate claim in respect of the Crop Insurance under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. When the respondents did not clear the said amount, the petitioner along with other formers had filed a writ petition i.e. WPC No. 2695/2018. The said writ petition stood disposed of on

01.10.2018, whereby the respondents were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and settle the same. Subsequently, on account of non-compliance a contempt petition was filed arising of the said writ petition i.e. CONT No. 591/2019. The contempt petition also stood disposed of on 22.08.2019 on the statement made by the respondents/State authorities that the payments have been made to a major portion of the persons and a few of the persons have been not paid as they were not eligible. The contempt Court had reserved the rights of those persons to avail appropriate remedy open to them.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner has now filed the present writ petition alleging that he has not been paid the insurance amount for one of his fields inspite of being insured and the petitioner also having paid the premium for the same. In the opinion of this Court, this again is a fact which needs verification by the concerned authorities.

4. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner approach the respondent No.1 on making a detailed representation within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and the respondent No.1 shall consider the representation and on due verification of the facts, if it has till date not been done, send a report to the respondent No.2 for further action and the respondent No.2 also shall take appropriate steps at the earliest in accordance with the report of the respondent No.1. The authorities concerned would also verify the fact whether the petitioner in fact had been paid any insurance amount in the past or not in respect of the said agricultural field, which according to the petitioner was insured and

for which he has not received the insurance claim. In case if the petitioner is not entitled for the same, let the respondent No.1 after verification of facts intimate the petitioner the reason for not being entitled.

5. Let this exercise be completed within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the representation to be made by the petitioner to the respondent No.1.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved