HC notice to Haryana on petition seeking quashing of scheme

CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court on Friday issued notice to the Haryana government and Centre on a public interest litigation filed seeking quashing of the 'Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana' and to refund the amount deducted from farmers' bank accounts along with interest.

The petition filed by Gurnam Singh and others from different districts of Haryana alleges that the purpose of the scheme launched on June 17 is to provide financial support to farmers suffering crop loss or damage due to unforeseen events.

However, without calling for the proposals from farmers and the land record from the revenue department, various banks have been deducting the premium amount from the farmers’ accounts, without following instructions of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

The petitioner’s lawyer, JS Toor submitted before the high court bench of justice SS Saron and justice Lisa Gill that the farmers were not even contacted or consulted and the amount was deducted against their wish.

This is something that the bank has no authority and the state has no power to direct on.

It was further argued that the state government selected three insurance companies namely ICICI-Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.

These insurance companies have recovered ₹123.55 crore as premium from farmers, ₹83.54 crore from the government and ₹45.26 crore from the central government under the scheme, amounting to a total of ₹252.35 crore.

However, as far as claims for the damage caused to crops, the insurance companies are alleged to have whittled down their compensation to less than ₹20crore, the court was informed.

The court was also told that the scheme has no parliamentary approval.

It only has administrative approval from the union cabinet and does not have any binding effect on the citizens.

The notification issued by the state also did not have a legislative sanction and was not binding, the court was informed.

The court has sought response from eight respondents, which include three insurance firms, by January 31, 2017.