IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MJC No.1149 of 2011
Anil Kumar son of Late Gokhul Prasad R/o village
Gopalbad P.O. Gopalbad
P.S.Sarmera District Nalanda. ... Petitioner.
Versus
1.The State Of Bihar.
2.Sri Ashok Kumar Sinha son of not known,
Agriculture Production
Commissioner, Bihar, Patna.
3.Sri Rameshwar Singh son of not known,
Secretary, Planning and
Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4.Sri Rameshwar Singh, son of not known,
Director, Statistical and Evaluation,
Bihar, Patna.
5.Sri A.K.Negi, son of not known,
Secretary, Co-operative Department,
Bihar, Patna.
6.Sri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, son of not
known, D.M. Nalanda.
7.Sri Surendra Kumar Sudhanshu, son of
not known, District Statistics Officer,
Nalanda.
8.Sri Sanjay Kumar, son of not known,
B.D.O.,Sarmera.
9.Sri Mani Roushan Prasad son of not
known, Block Agriculture Officer, Sarmera.
10.Sri Mithilesh Prasad, son of not known C.I.,
Sarmera.
11.Sri Ambika Rajak son of not known,
Junior Statistics Supervisor, Sarmera Block.
12.Sri M.K.Poddar son of not known,
Managing Director, Agriculture
Insurance Company of India Ltd.
13.Sri K.K.Mahapatra son of not known,
Zonal Manager(Officer in-charge,
Agriculture Insurance Company Ltd.
Ground Plaza, Fraser Road, Patna.
Opp. Parties.
-----------
2. 29.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the State.
Even if we accept he entire submissions advanced
on behalf of petitioner, the situation is as such:
2
The Division Bench directed the Agriculture
Production Commissioner, Bihar as well as the District
Magistrate, Nalanda to ensure that the figures required by the
Insurance Company with regard to the actual yield of
Agahani Paddy crop in Sarmera Anchal for Kharif- Season
2008 be made available to the Insurance Company within
one month from the date of the order dated 26th April 2010.
Thereafter the Insurance Company was to take decision as
per the policy within two months. According to the
petitioner, in stead of taking 16 cuttings of crops, the
subordinate authorities of the Sarmera Anchal procured only
12 cuttings and hence the actual yield report was defective
and was not accepted by the Insurance Company for
payment of insurance amount.
In the aforesaid situation, the opposite parties to
this contempt application, the Agriculture Production
Commissioner, Bihar and the District Magistrate, Nalanda
cannot be faulted for submitting whatever figures of yield
was made available by the Block authorities. They have also
made recommendation for payment as submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, in our view, it is
not a case where the opposite parties can be held guilty of
3
deliberate disobedience of this Court. The contempt
application is therefore, disposed of.
It goes without saying that if the petitioner is so
advised, he may claim damages from the concerned block
officials for their negligence and if so advised may also
pursue his claim for insurance amount against the Insurance
Company according to law.
(Shiva Kirti Singh,J)
Jay/ (Shivaji Pandey, J)