IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11084 of 2007 Date of decision: 7th August, 2009 Akhil Bhartiya Kissan Sabha … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HOB’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Randhir Singh, Additional Advocate General Haryana for the respondents. Notes: 1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Akhil Bhartiya Kissan Sabha, State Committee, Haryana has approached this Court praying that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued and the State of Haryana be directed to grant relief and payment to the farmers, whose Rabi crop for the year 2006 was damaged due to drought, in accordance with revised norms issued in year 2005 (Annexure P-3) for payment to farmers, whose crop was damaged due to hailstorm. It is pleaded in the writ petition that Rabi crop for the year 2006 of the farmers belonging to Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani was damaged due to drought. Case of the petitioner is that Bhiwani adjoins Civil Writ Petition No. 11084 of 2007 border of Rajasthan and the land there is not irrigated through Canals or any other source and even ground-water is not available for irrigation of fields. The farmers are solely dependent upon rain. For the last more than eight years, the crop was damaged due to scarcity of water, therefore, farmers of the area are facing great hardship and difficulties for their survival. Case of the petitioner is that in the year 2006, Rabi crop was damaged due to drought and that at the instance of social organizations, Government of Haryana sanctioned a gratuitous relief of Rs.3,33,28,000/- to the farmers of District Bhiwani. This relief, according to the petitioner, was distributed among the farmers according to Crop-wise Damage Report received from the District officials. The Government had quantified rate of disbursal of gratuitous relief at the rate of Rs.2500/- per hectare (Rs.1000/- per acre) for the area with assured irrigation and Rs.1000/- per hectare (Rs.400/- per acre) for rain-fed area. It is further stated that in the year 2005, Government of Haryana revised relief norms on account of damage to the standing food grains/ oil seeds and vegetable crops by hailstorm. As per revised norms, relief for 100 per cent damage of the crop was fixed at the rate of Rs.3000/- per acre for wheat crop and Rs.2500/- per acre for other crops. The primary grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that for the crop ‘Rabi 2006’, Government has granted relief for the crops affected by hailstorm, according to the norms prescribed vide Annexure P- 3, which are as under: Sr. No. Extent of damage to standing crops Relief norms per damaged acre 1. Damages between 26% to 50% Wheat Rs.1500/- Other Crops Rs.1250/- 2. Damages from 51% to 75% Wheat Rs.2250/- Other Crops Rs.1875/- 3. Damages from 76% to 100% Wheat Rs.3000/- Other Crops Rs.2500/- 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 11084 of 2007 The norms, which were followed for grant of relief to hailstorm victims, have not been adhered to in case of farmers, whose crop was damaged due to drought. Written statement to the writ petition has been filed by Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Bhiwani. In the reply, it has been admitted that there is a heavy scarcity of water and the crop was damaged due to drought in Rabi 2006 and therefore, the Government had granted gratuitous relief amounting to Rs.3,33,28,000/-. It was stated that Haryana Government had not fixed any norms for drought relief, therefore, compensation was paid to the farmers keeping in view the norms fixed by the Government of India. Furthermore, assistance to small and marginal farmers was given at the following rates: “Agriculture input subsidy where crop loss was 50% and above:- For agriculture crops, horticulture crops and annual plantation crops Rainfed areas Rs.1000/- per hectare. Rs.2500/- per hectare in areas with assured irrigation. Subsequently, another affidavit was filed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Bhiwani, wherein it was stated that the Government had revised its policy and from 10th January, 2007 onwards, Government has decided to grant relief to the farmers affected by natural calamities, including drought, as per uniform rates. Therefore, the distinction between farmers affected by hailstorm or drought has been done away with, even though, the Government earlier held a view that hailstorm occurs mostly when the crops are fully ripe and entire investment has been made by the farmers. On July 8, 2009, this case was adjourned to enable the Additional Advocate General, Haryana to seek instructions whether the modified norms would become applicable retrospectively or not. The 3 Civil Writ Petition No. 11084 of 2007 Additional Advocate General, Haryana today has placed on record a communication from the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, wherein it has been stated that the Government has revised the norms for relief to farmers, whose crops were damaged due to natural calamity, with effect from 7th July, 2009 and these rates will apply prospectively only and the farmers, whose interest the petitioner espouse and whose crops were damaged due to drought in year 2006, will not be entitled to the compensation/relief at the revised rates and the Government do not intend to re-open the old settled cases, taking into consideration resources available and policy of the Government. We have heard counsel for the parties. Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal appearing for the petitioner has expressed satisfaction that henceforth the farmers, whose crops have been damaged due to drought, will be paid at the same rate as the farmers, whose crops were damaged due to hailstorm. Acceptance of demand of the petitioner by the Government of Haryana for application of uniform rates for grant of relief to the farmers, who suffered due to any kind of natural calamity, according to Mr.Dhaliwal, though is a step in right direction, yet farmers, whose Rabi crop was damaged in the year 2006 due to drought, were not paid at the same rate as the farmers, whose crop was damaged due to hailstorm. Mr. Randhir Singh appearing for the State of Haryana has stated that due to constraint of resources and the policy decision taken by the State of Haryana, Govt. has decided not to re-open the old cases, as one of the consideration was that it will open Pandora’s box and demand can be raised by the farmers, whose crop was damaged prior to 2006 that payments should be made to them also, at the revised rates. This, 4 Civil Writ Petition No. 11084 of 2007 according to counsel for the State, is not acceptable to the Government, as to determine cut off date is prerogative of the State Govt. We find merit in the contention raised by the State Counsel that the State is well within its rights to determine the cut off date. In ‘State of Bihar v. Ramjee Prasad’ 1990 (3) SCC 368, the cut off date fixed for receipt of applications was assailed, as the prospective candidates were deprived of the opportunity to compete in the test, as on that cut off date they had not completed the requisite experience and could not satisfy criteria of three years service. An argument was raised that fixation of cut off date was arbitrary and was thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The High Court formulated a view that since the State Government had deviated from its usual practice of fixing cut off date as in the previous years, therefore, the advertisement was liable to be set aside. The view taken by the High Court was annulled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramjee Prasad (supra). Regarding cut off date, it was said as under: “7. … … … … While pointing out that a classification could be founded on a particular date and yet be reasonable, this Court observed that the choice of a date as a basis for classification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless the circumstances show it to be capricious or whimsical. When it is necessary for the legislature or the authorities to fix a line or a date and there is no mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, the decision of the legislature or authority must be accepted unless it is shown to be capricious or whimsical or wide off the reasonable mark.” The authority has a right to fix the cut off date was also recognized in ‘State of Rajasthan v. Amrit Lal Gandhi’ 1997 (2) SCC 5 Civil Writ Petition No. 11084 of 2007 342. The Hon’ble Supreme Court accepted the contention that the authority, while determining cut off date, can be guided by considerations, which are “wholly economic”. Thus, it was held that “it cannot be said that the paying capacity is not relevant or valid consideration while fixing the cut off date”. From the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find the fixation of cut off date, i.e. 7th July, 2009, the date the Government took the policy decision, to be arbitrary or whimsical. We are also of the view that the prayer made in the petition that the policy regarding relief to the farmers, who suffered from natural calamity be applied retrospectively, cannot be accepted, as financial and economic implications are relevant factors and germane to the formulation of any policy by the Government. In ‘Balco Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and others’, 2002 (2) Supreme Court Cases 333, Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the view taken in ‘Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India’ 2000 (10) SCC 664, which read as under: “234. In respect of public projects and policies which are initiated by the Government the courts should not become an approval authority. Normally such decisions are taken by the Government after due care and consideration. In a democracy welfare of the people at large, and not merely of a small section of the society, has to be the concern of a responsible Government. If a considered policy decision has been taken, which is not in conflict with any law or is not mala fide, it will not be in public interest to require the Court to go into and investigate those areas which are the function of the executive. For any project which is approved after due deliberation the Court should refrain from being asked to review the decision just because a petitioner in filing a PIL alleges that such a decision should not have been taken because an opposite view against the undertaking of the project, which view may have been considered by the 6 Civil Writ Petition No. 11084 of 2007 Government, is possible. When two or more options or views are possible and after considering them the Government takes a policy decision it is then not the function of the Court to go into the matter afresh and, in a way, sit in appeal over such a policy decision.” Therefore, we are of the view that the maxim laid in Balco Employees’ Union’s case (supra) “It is not for the courts to consider the relative merits of different economic policies and consider whether a wiser or better one can be evolved.” also binds us, therefore, we cannot issue any directions calling upon the Government to apply the amended policy retrospectively. Therefore, the present writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. [T. S. THAKUR] CHIEF JUSTICE [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 7, 2009 rps 7