1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.48 OF 2008 Dattu Eknath Patil & anr. .... Petitioners. v/s Union of India & Ors. .... Respondents. ----- Mr. Machindra Patil for petitioners. Mr. R.B. Raghuwanshi, Additional Solicitor General along with Mr. Kiran Kandpile & Rutuja Ambekar for Union of India. Mr. P.M. Patil, Government Pleader for the State. ----- CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND V.M.KANADE, J. DATE : 3RD APRIL, 2008. P.C.: 1. We have a serious doubt about the very maintainability of this PIL but in view of the approach that we propose to adopt in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it may not be necessary for us to dwell upon the Petition. 2 2. Suffice it to note that the prayer made by the petitioner that the resettlement package in terms of the policy framed by the Central Government should be released to the affected farmers without complying any conditions, is neither tenable nor can be granted by the Court particularly in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. However, one problem that requires attention of the concerned authorities is that one of the conditions for granting benefit of package is that the soil is to be chemically analyzed and its results would be material for determination by the concerned authorities. According to the petitioner, it is not financially viable and practicable for farmers from different areas of the State and particularly the small land owners to have the chemical analysis done through the private laboratory at their own expense. According to the petitioner, it will tantamount to frustrating the very object of the scheme by imposing a condition which is impossible of performance, harsh and which causes great hardship to the poor farmers. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the State has taken a very fair stand before the Court and he submits that the competent authority in the State Administration would look in to this aspect and examine the feasibility of chemical analysis of the soil by Government Laboratories or such other Laboratories which are prepared to do this work at very nominal rates at the request of the State. 3 5. In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel for the Respondent - State, we do not wish to issue any further directions and quote that the State shall take effective steps to solve the problem of these poor farmers. 6. Petition is disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE V.M. KANADE, J.