IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5147 of 2000. WRIT PETITION NO.5147 of 2000. WRIT PETITION NO.5147 of 2000. Shree Jaybahvanai Vibidha K.S.S.S. Maryadit ..Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Others ..Respondents Mr.S.M.Railkar for the Petitioner Mr.S.R.Nargolkar AGP for the respondent No.1 Mr.V.Y.Sanglikar for the respondent No.3 CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. R.Y.GANOO, JJ. R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED : 10th June, 2008. DATED : 10th June, 2008. DATED : 10th June, 2008. P.C. 1. This petition is filed challenging the Government Resolutin by which the Scheme of Crop Insurance has been introduced. The petitioner filed the petition challenging the scheme on the assumption that it is a compulsory scheme and there is no option given to anybody to opt out of the scheme. 2. This court admitted the petition for final hearing but declined to grant any interim order. The Order of this Court declining to grant interim -2- Order was challenged before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7187 of 2001. That appeal has been disposed of by the Supreme Court by Order dated 10.4.2006. Following paragraph from the judgment of the Supreme Court is relevant. "Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants very fairly stated that a circular dated 6.6.2006 has been issued in terms whereof it has been clarified that the Scheme is optional and not compulsory." The Supreme Court therefore disposed of the appeal holding that in view of the Circular the appeal becomes infructuous. 3. It is clear from the above quoted Order that the petitioner himself stated before the Supreme Court that because of the circular issued by the State Government, now the Scheme is optional and not compulsory. If that is the stand of the petitioner that the scheme is optional and not compulsory, we see no reason to entertain this petition because now according to the petitioner himself the scheme is optional and therefore he has -3- an option available not to join the scheme. Hence the petition is disposed of. 4. Rule discharged. 5. No order as to costs. (D.K.Deshmukh, J.) (D.K.Deshmukh, J.) (D.K.Deshmukh, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)