- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31402 WP No. 1248 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 1248 OF 2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. M.K. SHANKAR GURU S/O LATE M. KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O MADARAHALLI VILLAGE, KANNAHALLI POST, T.NARASIPURA, MYSORE DISTRICT-571124. 2. P. VENKATESH S/O D. PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O PALAHALLY, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571438. 3. SRI. SHIVANNA S/O SRINIVASAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O PALAHALLI, KODYALA POST, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571438. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. YASHWANTH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31402 WP No. 1248 of 2013 MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE AND AGRICULTURE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-1. 3. KARNATAKA STATES SEED CORPORATION LTD., BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BEEJ BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560 024. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3; SRI. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER/COMMUNICATION AT ANNEXURE-G IN KAA-RAA-BEE- NI/KARYAKARI/05720/2012-13 DATED 04.12.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31402 WP No. 1248 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged a communication / order bearing No.PÀgÁ©Ã¤/PÁAiÀÄðPÁj/05720/2012-13 dated 04.12.2012 issued by the respondent No.3 by which it refused to grant the incentives payable for the years 2009-10 and onwards under a Scheme, on the ground that the State Government had not released corresponding funds. The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to pay the subsidy on the seed cost and certification charges as per the Scheme named "PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ©Ãd C©üAiÀiÁ£À". 2. The respondent No.3 rolled out a scheme named "PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ©Ãd C©üAiÀiÁ£À" (Karnataka Beeja Abhiyana) (henceforth referred to as 'the Scheme') from the year 2008 in terms of which the farmers were promised a subsidy of Rs.150/- per quintal on the cost of seed, certification charges and Karnataka Seed Mission (KSM) production incentive for every quintal of crop grown and payment of other charges such as - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31402 WP No. 1248 of 2013 transportation, processing etc. Under the Scheme, the petitioners and other farmers were provided with foundation seeds by the respondent No.3 and they were required to cultivate their lands and raise quality seeds from the foundation seeds supplied to them and supply them to the respondent No.3. This Scheme was to be in force for a period of four years i.e. from 2008 to 2012. The petitioners were provided with the incentive on the seed cost and certification charges during the year 2008-09. The respondent No.3 induced the petitioners to grow and supply quality seeds in the following year. However, respondent No.3 stopped paying the subsidy/ies and incentives to the petitioners from following year. The petitioners gave representations to respondent No.3 which all went in vain. Thereafter, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P. Nos.48818/2011 and 1762-1764/2012 which were disposed off in terms of the order dated 07.09.2012 directing the respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioners and issue endorsement within the time stipulated therein. The respondent No.3 without considering the case of the petitioners issued the impugned endorsement stating that the State Government has not released the funds for the year - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31402 WP No. 1248 of 2013 2009-10 and onwards, for releasing the incentives and subsidy to the petitioners and therefore, they were not entitled to the same. 3. Being aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have followed the Scheme rolled out by the respondent No.3 and have cultivated their land for generating seeds and they have supplied the same to the respondent No.3. He contends that the respondent No.3 after having received the seeds, has now turned around and claimed that the petitioners are not entitled to incentives and subsidies on the ground that the corresponding funds were not released by the State Government. He contends that the petitioners legitimately expected that the respondent No.3 would honour its commitment to pay the incentives and subsidies as assured under the Scheme and therefore, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the said benefit. Besides, he also contends that when once the petitioners were given to believe that the seeds generated by them would be received by the respondent No.3 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31402 WP No. 1248 of 2013 at a particular cost together with incentives and subsidies, the petitioners cannot be left in the lurch by the respondent No.3. He, therefore, prays that a direction be issued to the respondent No.3 to pay the subsidy on the seed cost and certification charges on the produce that the petitioners had supplied to it and the applicable incentives. 5. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent No.3. It contends that the Scheme evolved by the respondent No.3 does not create any statutory right in favour of the petitioners to claim the incentives / subsidies as a matter of right. It has contended that during the year 2008-09, the funds were released by the Central Government under the Rashtriya Krushi Vikasa Yojane (RKVY) Programme to the State Government who in turn released the same to the respondent No.3 through the Karnataka Seed Mission and the benefits of the said incentive Scheme was given to all the farmers who had participated in the Programme during the year 2008-09. It contends that from the year 2009-10 onwards, the funds were not released by the Central Government as well as the State Government and as such, respondent No.3 did not provide the incentives to the farmers. It contends that there is no contract - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31402 WP No. 1248 of 2013 conferring rights on the farmers to claim such incentives for the succeeding years. It also denied that it had induced the petitioners to supply the seeds to the respondent No.3. It contends that the Programme Karnataka Seed Mission hereinafter referred to as 'KSM 2008-2012' though was contemplated to be implemented during the period 2008-2012, concerned authorities under the RKVY Programme had approved and released the funds for the said Programme only for few components for implementation during the year 2008- 09 and subsequently, the funds were not released for the said Programme. Therefore, the question of further extending the benefit of the Scheme and releasing incentives to the farmers does not arise. It has stated that it would release the benefits only if they are sanctioned by the State Government and the Government of India and that it has no authority to independently formulate Schemes and give incentives or benefits. However, it claimed that the respondent No.3 is paying proper procurement rates for the certified seeds produced and supplied by the farmers. Therefore, it contends that the petitioners are not entitled to any reliefs in this writ petition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31402 WP No. 1248 of 2013 6. The respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit of the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Department of Agriculture who has contended that the Government of India had released small sums of money and therefore, the State Government was not in a position to continue the subsidy for the Seed Production Programme. However, the State Government had released the subsidy in respect of the Seed Production Programme during the year 2008-09 as sufficient amount was released by the Government of India under the RKVY Scheme. It is further stated that in the year 2009-10, the Government of India had released a very less amount and therefore, the respondent No.3 was not in a position to release the subsidy / incentive for the Seed Production Programme and that the Scheme is discontinued from the year 2009-10. 7(i). The petitioners are all agriculturists, who have lands in the Kaveri basin. The respondent No.3 had formulated a Scheme called "PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ©Ãd C©üAiÀiÁ£À" ('Karnataka Beeja Abhiyana') in terms of which it induced the farmers to produce and supply quality seeds and assured farmers that the quality seeds so supplied would be purchased by the respondent No.3 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31402 WP No. 1248 of 2013 by granting subsidy of Rs.150/- for the cost of the seeds, certification charges and KSM production incentive for every quintal of seeds supplied and payment of other charges such as transportation, processing etc. were assured. The respondent No.3 had granted the incentive and subsidy for the year 2008- 09. During the subsequent years, the respondent No.3 without any demur had released the foundational seeds to the petitioners and received the seeds supplied by them. However, when it came to releasing the incentive and subsidy, the respondent No.3 did a volte face by claiming that the State Government and the Union Government did not release the funds. (ii). The production of quality seeds is the primary activity of the respondent No.3. What it could not do, it tried to get it done through the petitioners taking advantage of their ground experience and their ability to generate quality seeds. The petitioners having been induced by the respondent No.3 to generate and supply quality seeds, it cannot now turn around and claim that for the subsequent years i.e., 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, the State Government or the Union Government have not released any funds. This was not informed when - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31402 WP No. 1248 of 2013 farmers such as the petitioners had supplied the seeds in the first instance during the year 2008-09. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioners or any farmers were informed about the discontinuance of the Scheme and there is also nothing on record to show that there was any official communication by the State Government or the respondent No.3 regarding discontinuation of the Scheme. When once the petitioners have used the foundational seeds to generate seeds and have supplied quality seeds to the respondent No.3 under the Scheme, the respondent No.3 was bound to grant them all the benefits and incentives. It was for the respondent No.3 to escalate the issue before the State Government to ensure that the incentives and subsidies payable to the petitioners are paid. Therefore, respondent No.3 cannot deny, or protract the payment of incentives and subsidies to the petitioners. 8. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement bearing No.PÀgÁ©Ã¤/PÁAiÀÄðPÁj/05720/2012-13 dated 04.12.2012 issued by the respondent No.3 is quashed. It is made clear that the respondent No.3 shall first pay the subsidies and incentives to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31402 WP No. 1248 of 2013 the petitioners and thereafter, escalate the same before the respondent No.2. It is open for the petitioners to file a calculation memo mentioning the amount payable by the respondent No.3 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date the amounts became payable to them till the date the amount is paid. The respondent No.3 is directed to pay the incentives and subsidies payable to the petitioners under the "PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ©Ãd C©üAiÀiÁ£À" ('Karnataka Beeja Abhiyana') within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a calculation memo along with a certified copy of this order. 9. It is open for the respondent No.3 to escalate the issue before the respondent No.2 for reimbursement of the incentives and subsidies paid to the petitioners and the respondent No.2 shall ensure that the same is reimbursed to respondent No.3. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26