IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9688 of 2010 1. SARVESH KUMAR S/O MAHESHWAR PRASAD SHARMA R/O VILL.- PARSONI KAPUR, P.S. KATHAIYA, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, BIHAR, PATNA 4. REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BIHAR, PATNA 5. JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 6. DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE OFFICER, MUZAFFARPUR 7. THE MUZAFFARPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MUZAFFARPUR, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, MUZAFFARPUR 8. MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUZAFFARPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 04. 09.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, Chairman of the Pagahia P.A.C.S. in the District of Muzaffarpur is aggrieved by the executive order dated 29.4.2010 by which the Government in the Department of Co-operatives has issued directions to all Nodal Banks and Managing Directors of the District Co- operative Bank Limited not to pay the amount of crop insurance to the various beneficiaries through the P.A.C.S. insofar as non members loanees are concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this instruction interferes with the financial autonomy of the P.A.C.S. provided for in Section 44 A V of the Bihar Co- operative Act, 2008. Learned counsel for the State submits that he 2 has filed a counter affidavit on 9.12.2010 which is not available on record. Let the office tract it out and place on record. The Court requested the counsel for the State to make available his copy for perusal. Paragraph-9 of the same states that the Government had received complaints about irregularities being committed in disbursement of crop insurance and the fresh policy decision was necessitated to block any loopholes for siphoning of funds. Let the office retain a Zerox copy of the counter affidavit placed by the State counsel. Financial autonomy referred to in Section 44 A V by the learned counsel for the petitioner obviously relates to the members of the P.A.C.S. If the members of the P.A.C.S. take a crop insurance, quite obviously there will be better control by the P.A.C.S. over disbursement of the benefits to its members and the members can also keep a close eye over the P.A.C.S so that they get the benefits in accordance with law. Insofar as the non-loanees are concerned, the P.A.C.S. does not have any legal foundation to demand that they do business with the P.A.C.S. alone. For this reason, the State Government came out with an executive policy decision as distinct from the statutory rights of the P.A.C.S. that a non-loanees can also take crop insurance cover from the P.A.C.S. of which he is not a member. An executive policy decision does not stand at the 3 same footing as a statutory right. If the policy decision is reviewed for reasons to the satisfaction of the Government, it shall not be jurisdiction of the Court to interfere merely because it may or may not affect the financial interest of the P.A.C.S. Presently, nothing has been demonstrated before the Court to satisfy it of any arbitrariness in the policy decision. The counter affidavit has disclosed a ground of irregularities. In what manner the crop insurance scheme is made available is a policy decision best regulated by the State Government and not to be monitored by the Court. If the State mentions of irregularities, it is not the jurisdiction of the writ Court to go into the sufficiency of the materials to test the policy. The Court shall only see, if there was material. Apparently, from the counter affidavit, there is material. In absence of any legal right in the petitioner, to demand the right that non-loanees do business with it the Court finds no infirmity in the executive policy decision calling for interference. The writ application is dismissed. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)