IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15269 of 2002 Between: Kalluri Nageswara Rao, S/o. Venkataramaiah, Aged 44 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o.Korrapadu village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District, and 21 others. … Petitioners And M/s. State Bank of Hyderabad, Medikonduru village and Mandal, Guntur District. … Respondents Counsel for petitioners: Sri Naresh Byrapaneni Counsel for the respondent: Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana Order: Petitioners, agriculturists, seek a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent, State Bank of Hyderabad, in collecting insurance premium from them without following proper norms and guidelines, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Petitioners obtained agricultural loans from the respondent-bank. It is their grievance that an amount equivalent to 10% of the loan was deducted by the respondent-bank from their respective loan accounts towards insurance premium without following proper guidelines framed in this regard. It is alleged by the petitioners that they are not even furnished information as to where the amount of premium so deducted is remitted. 3. The Manager of the respondent-bank has filed counter affidavit stating that petitioners have availed agricultural loans from the respondent-bank and as per National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) insurance coverage is compulsory for all loanee farmers availing seasonal agriculture operations loans for notified crops in notified areas, upto full loan amount. In the counter affidavit, it is further stated that each of the petitioners, before releasing loan amounts, acknowledged terms and conditions of sanction of loan, which includes a clause for debiting the insurance premium amount, paid by the bank to their respective accounts. 4. Though it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that there are no guidelines as regards insurance coverage to the crops, but, however, it is evident from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-bank that insurance coverage is made compulsory pursuant to National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) notified by the Government of India. It is relevant to note that the scheme in question was the subject matter before this court in the case of Andhra Pradesh Rythu Sangham v. Union of India and others[1] and a Division Bench of this court in the said judgment upheld the validity of the said scheme. Further, in the counter affidavit, an averment has been made by the respondent-bank to the effect that petitioners, before releasing loan amounts, acknowledged terms and conditions of sanction of loan, which includes a clause for debiting the insurance premium amount, paid by the bank to their respective accounts. It is to be noted that petitioners, who are loanees, having acknowledged terms and conditions for sanction of the loan; after disbursement of loan amounts, cannot turn around and question the action of the respondent-bank in deducting amounts towards insurance premium. 5. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the judgment of this court referred above, no relief as sought can be granted. 6. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed, however, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J November 17, 2009 MRR [1] 2002 (2) ALD 486 (DB)