K. HANUMAKKA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are farmers, who had paid crop insurance premium to the 4th and 5th respondents through the 3rd respondent. It is the claim of the petitioners that even though they have suffered huge losses on account of rains, the 4th and 5th respondents were not paying appropriate compensation, which would enable the petitioners to discharge the crop loans taken by them from the 3rd respondent. In view of the above, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 to 5 in not releasing crop insurance amount to them, as per the premium paid by them.

(2.) It is clear that the compensation, if any, would have to be paid by respondents 4 and 5 as they are the Insurance Companies, which had taken the insurance premium from the petitioners. Respondent No.4 is a private insurance company and respondent No.5 is a branch office of respondent No.4 situated at Ananthapuramu, which are neither controlled by the State nor owned by the State.

(3.) On a query of how a writ petition would be maintainable against such private entities, Sri Seshadri Goalla, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that any private organization, which undertakes public function, would be part of the State and as such respondents 4 and 5 are part of the State and the writ petition would be maintainable. He relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd., and Ors. , 1986 1 SCC 264 ; N. Jayaprakasam v. Inspector of Police,2019 SCCOnlineMad 2266 ; and ABL International Ltd., and Anr., v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., and Ors. , 2004 3 SCC 553.