AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
The petitioner, a Member of the Legislative Assembly representing Siddipet Constituency, has filed the above Public Interest Litigation (PIL) with the following prayer:
“.....to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondents Authorities ‘in not releasing the loan waiver amount into the farmers bank account across the State of Telangana as per the Crop Loan Waiver Scheme (2024) under head of Runa Mafi scheme introduced by the State Government of Telangana, despite making the Representation vide No.094/MLA(SDPT)/2026, dated 22.05.2026 to Respondent No.1,3 and 4, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and Violative of rights guaranteed under Article 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from violation of principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the Respondent authorities to release the loan waiver amount into the farmers bank account under the Agricultural Loan Waiver Scheme(2024) introduced by the State Government of Telangana in accordance with law within a stipulated period, and to pass……..”
The Registry has returned the above W.P.(PIL)(SR) on 20.07.2026 with the following objection:
“Please mention the status of representation dated 22.05.2026 submitted to the Respondent No.1”.
The learned counsel for the petitioner represented the above W.P.(PIL)(SR) on 21.07.2026 with the following endorsement:
“The representation dated: 22.05.2026 submitted to Respondent No.1 is pending for consideration by the department and no orders have been passed thereon till date.”
The matter has been placed before this Court for orders on maintainability.
We have heard Sri J.Ramchander Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Ramavaram Chandrashekar Reddy, 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 non-implementation of the Crop Loan Waiver Scheme, 2024 (Runa Mafi Scheme) in respect of all eligible farmers across the State. Under G.O.Rt.No.567 dated 15.07.2024, the Scheme provides for waiver of short-term agricultural loans up to Rs.2 lakhs per family for loans availed during the period from 12.12.2018 to 09.12.2023. The petitioner contends that, despite the Scheme, a substantial number of eligible farmers have not received the benefit; in Siddipet Constituency alone, out of 43,363 eligible farmers, only 20,514 were stated to have received the benefit, leaving 22,849 farmers without benefit of the same. It is alleged that the non-release of the waiver amounts has resulted in continued bank liabilities, accumulation of interest and financial hardship to the affected farmers. The petitioner states that the issue was raised in the Legislative Assembly on 23.03.2026. The petitioner further states that pursuant to the order dated 06.05.2026 in W.P.(PIL) (SR) No.22831 of 2026, he submitted a representation dated 22.05.2026 to the competent authorities seeking implementation of the Scheme. Alleging that the representation remained pending, the petitioner filed the present PIL seeking a writ of mandamus directing release of the loan-waiver amounts to the eligible 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 Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) and a public representative, is entitled to espouse issues concerning public interest. The alleged non-release of loan-waiver amounts to eligible farmers across the State affects a large section of the farming community and, therefore, warrants consideration of the petition on merits.
ii) That the State Government had undertaken to waive crop loans up to Rs.2 lakhs and, pursuant thereto, introduced the Crop Loan Waiver Scheme, 2024 under G.O.Rt.No.567 dated 15.07.2024. However, according to the petitioner, against the proposed amount of Rs.31,000 crores, only Rs.20,000 crores has been released, leaving a balance of Rs.11,000 crores. The petitioner contends that the failure to release the balance amount is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, causing financial and mental distress to the affected farmers.
iii) That the representation dated 22.05.2026 submitted to the Chief Secretary and other competent authorities remains pending and no orders have been passed thereon. The petitioner, therefore, contends that he is constrained to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
iv) That by order dated 06.05.2026 in W.P.(PIL) (SR) No.22831 of 2026, this Court permitted the petitioner to submit a representation and thereafter approach the Court. Having submitted the representation in compliance with the said order, the petitioner contends that there is no impediment to registration and consideration of the present PIL.
In support of his case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on State of Maharashtra and others v. Sarangdharsingh Shivdassingh Chavan and another1, contending that the plight of farmers, including instances of farmer suicides, warrants judicial intervention where governmental action or inaction adversely affects their interests.
Consideration by this Court
In the present case, though the petition is styled as a PIL, a careful examination of the pleadings and the list of events indicate that several averments relate to the petitioner’s political role, his criticism of the policies and functioning of the State Government, and the situation prevailing in his own constituency.
It is well settled that a genuine PIL may be instituted by a person acting bona fide to espouse a cause affecting a larger section of society. At the same time, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that the extraordinary jurisdiction in PIL matters must be exercised with care and cannot be permitted to become a forum for settling political scores or ventilating political grievances. The petitioner’s repeated reference to proceedings and debates in the Legislative Assembly, by themselves, cannot furnish a basis for judicial intervention, as matters relating to policy formulation, implementation and executive responsibility ordinarily fall within the appropriate constitutional sphere.
Further, the controversy regarding the quantum of funds released under the loan-waiver scheme, namely, whether Rs.31,000 crores were contemplated and whether only Rs.20,000 crores has been released, essentially concerns the implementation and financial administration of a governmental scheme. Mere dissatisfaction with the pace or extent of implementation, without establishing violation of any statutory or constitutional obligation, would not, by itself, justify exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court does not ordinarily sit in judgment over the fiscal priorities or policy choices of the Government unless such choices are shown to be contrary to law or the Constitution.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal2, 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 raised the issue before the Government and in the Legislative Assembly. Therefore, the petitioner’s interest cannot be viewed in complete isolation from his position as an elected representative of the constituency concerned.
It is pertinent to note that, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(PIL)(SR).No.22831 of 2026. By order dated 06.05.2026, this Court permitted the petitioner to make a representation before the competent authority and to re-present the petition along with a copy of such representation after eight weeks. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.05.2026 to the competent authorities. However, the present PIL came to be re-presented on 22.06.2026, i.e., within one month of the representation and well before the expiry of the period of eight weeks stipulated in the earlier order of this Court. The representation was admittedly pending consideration, and no order had been passed thereon by the competent authority. The mere pendency of the representation, particularly when the petitioner had been specifically permitted to re-present the petition only after eight weeks, could not furnish a justification for approaching this Court before expiry of the said period.
The petitioner was required to abide by the course indicated by this Court in its earlier order and afford the competent authority the stipulated period to consider the representation. The present petition, having been instituted before expiry of that period, is premature. The principle underlying the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies is that the statutory or competent authority should ordinarily be afforded an opportunity to consider and decide the grievance before the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is invoked.
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 India3, 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.
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 bythe 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 release of the balance amount 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. Further, the pleadings do not disclose any specific infringement of a fundamental right. The grievance essentially concerns the alleged non-implementation or incomplete implementation of a governmental policy relating to crop-loan waiver. Mere economic hardship arising from the alleged delay or non-release of the waiver amount, without demonstrating violation of any enforceable statutory or constitutional right, would not, by itself, warrant issuance of a writ of mandamus. The Court cannot ordinarily compel the Government to implement a policy or a scheme or to give effect to political assurances made in public forums and more particularly direct that the same be implemented in a specified manner or pace.
Though the petitioner has referred to instances of farmer suicides, the pleadings do not establish any direct or proximate nexus between such deaths and the alleged non-release of the loan-waiver amounts. While the Court is conscious of the hardship faced by farmers, such hardship, in the absence of a demonstrated violation of an enforceable legal or Constitutional right, cannot by itself furnish a ground for issuing a writ of mandamus. The implementation of governmental policy and allocation of public funds primarily fall within the executive domain and is not amenable to judicial review unless such action is shown to be contrary to law or the Constitution.
Further, the reliance placed on Sarangdharsingh Shivdassingh Chavan’s case (supra 1) is misplaced. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was concerned with specific executive interference in the registration of criminal cases against a money-lender, in the backdrop of allegations of exploitation of poor farmers and farmer suicides, and found such interference to be contrary to law and the rule of law. The present case stands on a fundamentally different footing where there is no executive action restraining or denying any legal remedy to the farmers, nor any material establishing a direct nexus between the alleged non-release of loan-waiver amounts and the suicides referred to by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner's grievance concerns the alleged non-release of funds under the Crop Loan Waiver Scheme, 2024, while his representation dated 22.05.2026 remains is pending consideration. The implementation of the crop loan waiver scheme falls within the executive domain, and this Court cannot supplant its jurisdiction for the administration machinery while the executive is in the process of considering the petitioner’s representation. The endorsement of the petitioner that his representation was pending consideration is insufficient to invoke the Writ (Public Interest Litigation) jurisdiction. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the representation was finally rejected or that the petitioner had waited for a sufficient/reasonable period after submitted the representation.
Conclusion
For the forgoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the subject matter of the present petition pertains to fiscal policy and Government budget allocation, which is outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Further, the petition essentially concerning the implementation and disbursement of the loan-waiver 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.