THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.10822, 13120, 14381, 14959, 15336, 17074, 19070, 19130, 20069, 20507 of 2007, 1159, 2904, 9618, 11313, 14063, 16570, 17285, 17940, 18264, 18267, 18715, 18717, 20239, 20589, 22181, 23151, 23160 of 2008, 13145, 13767, 13807, 14349, 14899, 15243, 15375, 15394, 16094, 22611, 23819, 24820, 25262 of 2009 and 3320 of 2010 Date:01.04.2011 Between: Puvvada Nageswararao and others ..... Petitioners AND The General Manager, Nalgonda District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Nalgonda and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Mekaladurgaiah, Sri S.Siva Prasad and Sri K.Chidambaram Counsel for Respondents: Government Pleader for Agriculture, Sri M.Narender Reddy, Sri Srinivas Polavarapu, Sri R.V.Nagabushanam Rao, Sri A.Krishnam Raju, Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy and Smt. Bobba Vijayalakshmi The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged deduction of crop insurance premium from the crop loans released/to be released to them as illegal. At the hearing, it is represented by the learned counsel for the respondents that these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed for two reasons, namely that the Khariff and Rabi crop seasons of 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 for which the writ petitions are filed, have already been over and that the issues raised in these writ petitions are squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Andhra Pradesh Rythu Sangham v. Union of India and others[1]. Having carefully perused the record, I find merit in these submissions of the learned counsel. As the crop seasons of 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 have been over, the cause in these writ petitions does not survive for consideration. In any event, the Division Bench in the above said judgment upheld the validity of the crop insurance scheme. Therefore, on both these grounds, these writ petitions are dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of these writ petitions, the interim orders, if any, granted by this Court in these writ petitions shall stand vacated and the interlocutory applications pending, if any, in these writ petitions are dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 01st April, 2011 GHN [1] 2002 (2) ALD 486 (DB)