AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
The petitioner, a Member of the Legislative Assembly representing Adilabad Constituency has filed the above Public Interest Litigation with the following prayer:
“…..to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction and failure of the. respondents in providing timely and adequate monetary relief of Rs.231.617 Crores to the 2,15,820 farmer families in the State of Telangana and 11,839 in Adilabad District whose agricultural lands to an extent of 2,31,617 acres were inundated due to heavy rains in 11th Aug to 1st week of September 2025 and Montha Cyclone from 28th to 31st October 2025, despite administrative sanction and allotted funds of Rs.122,33,15,052/- and Rs.109,28,61,000/- through G.O.Rt.No.68, 69 Dt.25.11.2025 and further issuing release of input subsidy orders to the 2,15,820 farmers vide proceedings No. Bud.I/e-813415/NC/2025-26-1 dt.25.11.2025 No.Bud.Ie-813415/NC/2025-26-2, dt.25.11.2025 and not answering his question to the government through Assembly on 06.02.2026, despite raising the issue on the floor of the house on 25.03.2026 and not considering his representations dt.04.12.2025, 09.04.2026 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article, 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India and against DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTION thereby adversely affecting the 2,15,820 farmer families in the State of Telangana; consequently direct the respondents to pay the input subsidy of Rs.231.617 crores to 2,15,820 farmers as approved by G.O.Rt.No.68, 69 Dt.25.11.2025 and as per release of input subsidy orders vide proceedings No.Bud.I/e-813415/NC/2025-26-1, Dt.25.11.2025, No.Bud.I/e-813415/NC/2025-26-2 dt.25.11.2025 within a period of two weeks and to pass....”
The Registry has returned the above W.P.(PIL)(SR) on 18.06.2026 with the following objection:
“1.Details of farmers and details of crop damage particulars to be filed who did not receive crop loss compensation.
2.Proof of service is to be filed.”
The learned counsel for the petitioner represented the above W.P.(PIL)(SR) on 01.07.2026 with the following endorsement:
“1.PIL is not filed in pursuant to specific farmers, whole of the farmers in the district have been taken into consideration for example. RTE PIL is filed for the benefit of children in larger scale but not for any one specific child.
2.There is no need to give any notice to Government as relief includes Article 21 of Constitution and violation of fundamental rights of farmers.”
The matter has been placed before this Court for orders on maintainability.
We have heard Sri Sai Santosh, learned counsel representing Sri Thandava Yogesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the documents placed on record and have considered the submissions made and the contents of the documents.
The petitioner filed the present W.P.(PIL) alleging inaction on the part of the respondents in disbursing input subsidy to farmers whose agricultural lands were affected by heavy rains during August–September 2025 and on account of Cyclone “Montha” between 28.10.2025 and 31.10.2025. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the assessment made by the authorities, 2,15,820 farmer families in the State, including 11,839 farmers in Adilabad District, were affected, involving an extent of 2,31,617 acres, and that the Government, through G.O.Rt.Nos.68 and 69 dated 25.11.2025, sanctioned amounts of Rs.122.33 crores and Rs.109.28 crores towards input subsidy and issued consequential proceedings for release of the said amounts. According to the petitioner, despite such administrative sanction and release proceedings, the input subsidy was not disbursed to the affected farmers in a timely manner. The petitioner claims to have raised the issue by sending a question to the Government through Assembly on 06.02.2026 and subsequently raised the issue on the floor of Legislative Assembly on 25.03.2026. The petitioner also claims to have submitted representations dated 04.12.2025 and 09.04.2026. Alleging failure of the respondents in taking necessary action is constrained to approach this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the sanctioned input subsidy of Rs.231.617 crores to the affected farmers.
At this juncture, it is apposite to take note of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner hereunder:
That the petitioner, being a public representative, has the requisite locus standi to maintain the present W.P.(PIL) in the larger public interest of 2,15,820 farmer families in the State of Telangana and has no personal or private interest in the matter.
ii) That having regard to the alleged inaction and unjust treatment on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has no efficacious alternative remedy and is therefore justified in invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
iii) That upon the Government acknowledging the damage caused to the agricultural lands and sanctioning the requisite funds towards input subsidy, the affected farmers acquired a legitimate expectation of receiving such relief, and the failure to disburse the sanctioned amount amounts to violation of the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation.
iv) That the continued inaction and failure of the respondents to extend timely monetary relief to the affected farmers is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Consideration by this Court
In the present case though the petitioner asserts that he has no personal interest in the matter, the pleadings disclose that he is an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly representing Adilabad Constituency and has been actively pursuing the grievance concerning non-disbursement of input subsidy to the affected farmers. The chronology of events and the representations dated 04.12.2025 and 09.04.2026 indicate that the petitioner has pursued the matter in his capacity as the representative of the said constituency. The petitioner has also stated that, whenever he visits his constituency, several affected farmers approach him and raise their grievances regarding non-payment of the compensation, thereby prompting him to pursue the matter with the authorities. Thus, the petitioner's asserted interest in the subject matter is substantially connected with his representative and constituency-related capacity.
Further, the mere non-response to the said representations, by itself, does not automatically confer a cause for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, particularly when the administrative process for identification of beneficiaries and disbursement of the sanctioned assistance is stated to have been initiated.
It is further relevant that the relief sought in the present PIL is not in respect of an abstract or indeterminate public grievance, but concerns the disbursement of a quantified amount of Rs.231.617 crores towards input subsidy to 2,15,820 affected farmer families in the State, including 11,839 farmers in Adilabad District. The grievance, therefore, relates to a specific class of beneficiaries whose alleged entitlement and the amount claimed have been identified in the petition.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal1, has held as under:
181.We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this Court and other courts in a number of judgments. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:
(1)The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.
(2)Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter.
(3)The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL.
(4)The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.
(5)The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition
(6)The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.
(7)The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation.
(8)The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.
It is no doubt true that the traditional rule of locus standi is relaxed in matters of PIL. However, such relaxation does not dispense with the requirement that the petitioner must establish that the litigation is genuinely intended to advance a public cause and is not founded upon a personal, political or other oblique interest. In the present case, the petitioner has himself placed on record that he has been pursuing the grievance primarily on account of representations made by the affected farmers of his constituency and has raised the issue before the Government and in the Legislative Assembly. Therefore, the petitioner’s interest cannot be viewed in complete isolation detached from his position as an elected representative of the constituency concerned.
The petitioner’s submission that there is no other alternative remedy available except to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be accepted, for the following reasons:
The petitioner's own pleadings disclose that the issue has already been taken up with the Government and pursued through the Legislative Assembly. The petitioner raised a question on 06.02.2026 and again raised the issue on the floor of the House on 25.03.2026. While such proceedings may not constitute an alternative statutory remedy in the strict sense, they demonstrate that the grievance has already been brought to the notice of the competent executive authorities through the constitutional and democratic mechanisms available to the petitioner in his capacity as an MLA.
ii) The relief sought in the present petition substantially concerns the implementation of executive decisions which, according to the petitioner's own pleadings, have already been taken by the Government. The Government has assessed the crop damage, issued G.O.Rt.Nos.68 and 69 dated 25.11.2025, issued Budget Release Orders vide BRO Nos.1769 and 1770 dated 21.11.2025, and issued consequential proceedings vide Progs.Nos.Bud.I/e-813415/NC/2025-26-1 and 2 dated 25.11.2025 for release of the input subsidy. Thus, the grievance projected before this Court is not that the Government has failed to take any decision or formulate any measure for extending relief, but essentially that the sanctioned amounts have allegedly not been disbursed to the beneficiaries.
It is to be noted that the principles governing judicial restraint in matters falling within the executive domain have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India2, wherein it is held as under:
234.In respect of public projects and policies which are initiated by the Government the courts should not become an approval authority. Normally such decisions are taken by the Government after due care and consideration. In a democracy welfare of the people at large, and not merely of a small section of the society, has to be the concern of a responsible Government. If a considered policy decision has been taken, which is not in conflict with any law or is not mala fide, it will not be in public interest to require the court to go into and investigate those areas which are the function of the executive. For any project which is approved after due deliberation the court should refrain from being asked to review the decision just because a petitioner in filing a PIL alleges that such a decision should not have been taken because an opposite view against the undertaking of the project, which view may have been considered by the Government, is possible. When two or more options or views are possible and after considering them the Government takes a policy decision it is then not the function of the court to go into the matter afresh and, in a way, sit in appeal over such a policy decision.
Further, the petitioner’s contention that the Government’s acknowledgment of the damage suffered by the farmers and sanction of the requisite input subsidy gave rise to a legitimate expectation of immediate relief, and that the alleged non-disbursement thereof amounts to a violation of the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation, cannot be accepted, as the mere existence of a legitimate expectation does not, by itself, confer an enforceable substantive right, nor can the doctrine be invoked independently of the facts and circumstances giving rise to such expectation.
In Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the doctrine of legitimate expectation and held that such expectation must arise from a representation, promise, established practice or consistent past conduct of the authority, and that it cannot be claimed as a matter of right merely because a person expects a particular course of action. The relevant para of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
33.On examination of some of these important decisions it is generally agreed that legitimate expectation gives the applicant sufficient locus standi for judicial review and that the doctrine of legitimate expectation is to be confined mostly to right of a fair hearing before a decision which results in negativing a promise or withdrawing an undertaking is taken. The doctrine does not give scope to claim relief straightaway from the administrative authorities as no crystallised right as such is involved. The protection of such legitimate expectation does not require the fulfilment of the expectation where an overriding public interest requires otherwise. In other words where a person's legitimate expectation is not fulfilled by taking a particular decision then decision-maker should justify the denial of such expectation by showing some overriding public interest. Therefore even if substantive protection of such expectation is contemplated that does not grant an absolute right to a particular person. (Emphasis supplied)
In the present case, since the Government has already taken a decision to extend input subsidy and has sanctioned the requisite funds, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the respondents have withdrawn, repudiated or acted contrary to any representation or assurance so as to attract the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has stated that the source of information includes grievances received at his MLA camp office, which is also relevant to the nature of the interest being espoused by him.
More importantly, the Registry specifically required the petitioner to furnish details of the farmers who had not received crop-loss compensation and particulars of the crop damage. Instead of furnishing the same, the petitioner stated that the PIL was filed for the benefit of all farmers. However, when the relief sought is for disbursement of a quantified amount of Rs.231.617 crores to 2,15,820 farmer families, the petitioner is expected to place sufficient material before the Court to substantiate the basis of such claim. Mere reference to a large number of beneficiaries, without supporting particulars, cannot by itself furnish an adequate factual foundation for the relief sought.
The petitioner's reliance upon PILs concerning systemic violations is misplaced, as the present case concerns the alleged non-disbursement of a quantified amount under a specific Government scheme to identified beneficiaries. Accordingly, mere filing of the prescribed affidavits and annexures cannot be treated as sufficient compliance where the foundational facts necessary to substantiate the relief sought have not been adequately placed before the Court.
Further, the petition is also founded on a broad generalization and does not disclose any specific cause of action justifiable under Article 226 of the Constitution. The prayers sought are inherently legislative and executive in character. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal4, has held that information furnished by the petitioner in a PIL cannot be vague and indefinite. The said relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
10.The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.
Further, the petitioner contends that the inaction and failure of the respondents to provide timely monetary relief to the affected farmers is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The said contention cannot be accepted in the absence of any specific material demonstrating infringement of the fundamental rights invoked. As regards Article 14, the petitioner has not established any discriminatory or arbitrary treatment of the affected farmers; rather, the Government has assessed the damage and sanctioned the requisite funds. Likewise, no material has been placed to demonstrate that the alleged delay in disbursement of input subsidy has infringed any of the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19, including the right to carry on an occupation under Article 19(1)(g).
As regards Article 21, though the right to livelihood has been recognised as an integral component of the right to life in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation5, every delay in disbursement of financial assistance or welfare benefits cannot be construed as deprivation of the right to livelihood. In the present case, no material has been placed to establish that the alleged delay has resulted in deprivation of the farmers' right to life or livelihood in the constitutional sense. Thus, the grievance projected by the petitioner, at its highest, concerns an alleged delay in the implementation of an executive decision and does not, on the material placed before this Court, establish any violation of Articles 14, 19 or 21 of the Constitution.
Conclusion
For the forgoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition essentially concerning the implementation and disbursement of benefits under an executive welfare scheme to a specific class of beneficiaries, does not disclose any public wrong or injury affecting the public at large. The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for day-to-day monitoring of executive decisions or to assume functions falling within the domain of the executive.
In view of the above, the office objection raised by the Registry as to the maintainability of WP(PIL)(SR) is upheld. The petition is not maintainable in its present form and accordingly, the registration of the same is refused.