A.Malaisamy v. Neha Chaudhary

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN A.Malaisamy ... Petitioner Vs 1.Neha Chaudhary, Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Co-operation and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welrare, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001.

2.P.Amudha, State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

3.M.S.Sangeetha, District Collector Cum District Magistrate, Madurai District, Collectorate, Madurai - 625 020.

4.G.Sv.Amuthan, Joint Director of Agriculture, O/o.The Joint Director of Agriculture, Thallakulam, Madurai - 625 002.

1/6

5.Anjan Joshi, Chief Grievance Officer and Head-Customer Experience Management, 1st Floor, HDFC House, 165/166, Backbay Reclamation, H.T.Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400 020.

... Respondents PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the contemnors/respondents for committing contempt of Court by their wilful deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court dated 05.11.2024 made in W.P(MD)No.2184 of 2024.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanakumar For RR 2 to 4 : Mr.D.Gandhi Raj Special Government Pleader

ORDER

This Contempt Petition has been filed seeking to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.2184 of 2024, dated 05.11.2024, whereby the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the rejection of his in the manner known to law.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the rejection order has not been served on the petitioner so far.

2/6

3.When the matter is taken up for hearing today, Mr.D.Gandhi Raj, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 4, on instructions, submitted that there was no individual rejection order rejecting the claim made by the agriculturists for the grant of crop insurance. He further submitted that there was no formal rejection communication issued to individual claimants, unlike individual retail policies. The responsibility for denial of the claim lies purely within the framework of the scheme and is based on data outcomes. Farmers are made aware at the beginning of the season that PMFBY is a structural, area-based indemnity system and not an individualized insurance policy. Therefore, no copy of rejection is available and the same was not served to the petitioner. That apart, the claim of the petitioner and others was rejected on the ground that they had harvested paddy crop and had achieved the actual yield from their fields, they were not entitled to any crop insurance. 3/6

4.In view of the above submissions, no contempt is made out as against the respondents and this Contempt Petition stands dismissed.

18.12.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No ps 4/6

1.Neha Chaudhary, Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Co-operation and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001.

2.P.Amudha, State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

3.M.S.Sangeetha, District Collector Cum District Magistrate, Madurai District, Collectorate, Madurai - 625 020. 4.G.Sv.Amuthan, Joint Director of Agriculture, O/o.The Joint Director of Agriculture, Thallakulam, Madurai - 625 002.

5.Anjan Joshi, Chief Grievance Officer and Head-Customer Experience Management, 1st Floor, HDFC House, 165/166, Backbay Reclamation, H.T.Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400 020.

5/6

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

ps 18.12.2025 6/6