In the High Court at Calcutta

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

CPAN 1991 of 2024

IA No: CAN 1 of 2026

in

WPA 12855 of 2024

Sk. Ali Hossain

Vs.

K G Ananta Krishan

With

CPAN 1992 of 2024

in

WPA 14194 of 2021

IA No: CAN 1 of 2025

Syaid Mahasum Billa

Vs.

K V ANANTA KRISHAN

with

CPAN 1993 of 2024

in

WPA 14180 of 2021

IA NO: CAN 1 of 2025

Sk Rejaul Hossain

Vs.

K V Ananta Krishan

With

CPAN 1995 of 2024

in

WPA 13403 of 2021

IA No: CAN 1 of 2025

Durba Mahapatra

Vs.

K G Ananta Krishan

With

2

CPAN 1996 of 2024

in

WPA 13397 of 2021

IA NO: CAN 1 of 2025

Subham Mahapatra

Vs.

K G Ananta Krishan

With

CPAN 1997 of 2024

In

WPA 12836 of 2021

IA No: CAN 1 of 2025

Samir Mahapatra

Vs.

K G Ananta Krishan

With

CPAN 1998 of 2024

In

WPA 13388 of 2021

IA No: CAN 1 of 2025

Tripti Goswami

Vs.

K G Ananta Krishan

With

CPAN 1999 of 2024

In

WPA 14190 of 2021

IA No: CAN 1 of 2025

Syed Yasin Hossain

Vs.

K G Ananta Krishan

With

CPAN 2010 of 2024

In

WPA 14184 of 2021

IA No: CAN 1 of 2025

Sk. Ainal Haque

Vs.

K G Ananta Krishan

3

With

CPAN 2012 of 2024

In

WPA 14182 of 2021

IA No: CAN 1 of 2025

Mir Yasin

Vs.

K G Ananta Krishan

For the petitioners in

CPAN 1991 of 2024,

CPAN 1992 of 2024,

CPAN 1993 of 2024,

CPAN 1995 of 2024,

CPAN 1996 of 2024,

CPAN 1997 of 2024,

CPAN 1998 of 2024,

CPAN 1999 of 2024,

CPAN 2010 of 2024,

CPAN 2012 of 2024 : Mr. S. K. Humayun Reza

For the Insurance Company

In all the matters : Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar,

Mr. Rajesh Singh,

Mr. Aniruddha Singh, … Advs.

For the alleged contemnor/

Punjab National Bank in

CPAN 1991 of 2024,

CPAN 1992 of 2024,

CPAN 1993 of 2024,

CPAN 1995 of 2024,

CPAN 1996 of 2024,

CPAN 1997 of 2024,

CPAN 1998 of 2024,

CPAN 1999 of 2024,

CPAN 2010 of 2024,

CPAN 2012 of 2024 : Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya,

Mrs. Parna Roy Choudhury,

Ms. Trisa Chanda, … Advs.

Heard on : 14.11.2025, 12.12.2025, 19.12.2025,

27.03.2026 & 03.07.2026

Reserved on : 03.07.2026

Judgment on : 10.07.2026

4

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The present proceeding originated from a bunch of writ petitions filed by a

group of agriculturists of the Kotulpur area of District Bankura in West

Bengal. All the writ petitioners had applied for coverage under a crop

insurance scheme, namely, the “Bangla Shasya Bima” (BSB) Yojana, floated

by the Department of Agriculture, Government of West Bengal, for the year

2019-2020. According to the writ petitioners, although they deposited

premium for the policies duly with the Punjab National Bank (PNB),

Kotulpur Branch, subsequently their claims of insurance under the said

Scheme were not honoured, giving rise to the writ petitions.

2. By different orders, inter alia dated December 18, 2023, this Court disposed

of the writ petitions, directing the respondent/insurance company, being the

National Insurance Company, to extend the time for depositing the

premiums by the Bank and the Bank (PNB) to pay the due instalments of

premium on behalf of the petitioners under the said Scheme to the

insurance company, paying the due arrears at one go within a fortnight from

the date of the orders and all premiums thereafter regularly.

3. Subsequently, the writ petitioners filed contempt applications, alleging that

the Bank did not comply with the said directives. In defence, the PNB took

the plea that it had sought to deposit the subsequent premiums in time, but

the insurance company did not act on the same, upon which, as per the

direction of the Court, the insurance company was impleaded as respondent

in the contempt applications.

5

4. Subsequently, the insurance company appeared in the contempt

proceedings and filed independent applications for recall of the orders of the

writ court directing revival of the Scheme.

5. Due to inter-connection of the issues involved, the contempt applications

and the recall applications were taken up for hearing together and are being

decided by this judgment.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the insurance company argues that

since the company was not represented in the writ petition, its stand could

not be placed before the Court. It is submitted that as per the BSB Scheme,

the liability was on the Bank to remit the premiums in time, with particulars

of the insured persons and relevant details. However, the Bank, although

sending a portion of the premiums to the insurance company within time,

failed to disclose the said particulars. Thus, the said amounts could not be

apportioned and/or no policy could be drawn up in terms of the Scheme in

favour of the writ petitioners.

7. Learned senior counsel places reliance on sub-clauses (1), (2) and (3) of

Clause XVII of the Operational Guidelines under the Scheme in support of

such contention.

8. It is next contended that the allegation of technical glitch raised by the

bank, purportedly preventing it from uploading the particulars of the

insured persons, is not acceptable, since it is only the Kotulpur Branch of

the PNB which suffered from such snags , if any. In any event, the

particulars were to be uploaded on the Crop Insurance Portal maintained by

the State Government, in terms of Clause XXV of the Scheme, over which

the insurance company had no control. It is submitted that the Bank, even

otherwise, could have intimated the insurance company the particulars by

6

other modes. However, no effort was taken to that end by the Bank at any

point of time. Thus, the liability for the insurance policies never

materialising lies squarely on the Bank.

9. It is further argued that the Scheme itself had expired when the writ

petitions were even filed. Hence, this Court travelled beyond its jurisdiction

in directing the same to be revived. The cut-off date for payment for the

Scheme was January 15, 2020, by which no data was uploaded by the

bank. Although remittances of premium were made by the Kotulpur Branch

of the PNB on December 31, 2019 and February 20, 2020, no data

accompanied such deposits. Throughout the Rabi crop season for the

relevant period, no farmer-wise data was ever uploaded.

10. Learned senior counsel for the insurance company places reliance on an

Order dated November 9, 2023 , bearing no.286-AG/O/1M-69/2022,

authored by the Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, State of West

Bengal, whereby, as per direction of a writ court in a different matter, an

adjudication was made in respect of a similar dispute. It was observed

therein that as per a Notification dated November 29, 2019, in terms of the

Seasonality Discipline mentioned therein, bankers were to provide the

details of the insured farmers’ list along with consolidated

declarations/proposals to the insurance company and also to upload the

relevant data in the Crop Insurance Portal well before the cut-off date but,

as no information had been so uploaded and no payment of the State’s

share of the premium had been claimed or released in favour of the

petitioners, no insurance under the BSB Scheme had commenced against

the said farmers for the Rabi 2019 -2020 season and therefore, the

7

concerned agriculturists were not covered under the BSB for the said

season.

11. By the said order, the Principal Secretary further held that the insurance

company and the bank authorities were required to settle the refund of

share of premium to the agriculturists along with interest as applicable and

that the farmers were entitled to get benefit for their crop losses from the

bank, who deducted premium from the loan accounts, as there were laches

from the end of the Bank Authorities (PNB, Kotulpur Branch) for coverage of

the said agriculturists.

12. Thus, the issue, it is argued, has already been settled by the said order and

affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court which relied on the same, and the

bank is estopped from reagitating the self-same issue.

13. It is next contended by the insurance company that the reliance of the bank

on Clause X, sub-clause (14) of the BSB Guidelines has no manner of

application in the present litigation, since the same came under the distinct

head “Non-Loanee Farmers (Operational Coverage)”, whereas the present

writ petitioners are all loanee farmers.

14. Since no claim was raised by the farmers during the relevant period but only

in 2021, whereas the Scheme mandates strict adherence to timelines, it is

argued that the writ petitioners are also not entitled to the claims.

15. In the above circumstances, it is prayed by the insurance company that the

orders passed in the writ petitions, directing the insurance company

virtually to revive the Scheme, be recalled.

16. Lastly, it is submitted that since the orders passed by this court were

unworkable in any event, as the tenure of the Scheme had lapsed and it was

not possible for the insurance company to adhere to the same thereafter, the

8

contempt proceeding against the insurance company ought also to be

dropped.

17. Learned senior counsel cites M.M. Thomas v. State of Kerala, reported at

(2000) 1 SCC 666, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the scope of

review. It was held that, as a court of records under Article 215 of the

Constitution of India, the power and duty to review its own judgment are

inherent in every High Court. A High Court, it was held, is unquestionably a

superior court of plenary jurisdiction, competent to determine the scope of

its jurisdiction, and has not only the power but also the duty to correct any

error apparent on the face of the record.

18. Learned senior counsel next cites Maruti Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. V. Life

Insurance Corporation of India, reported at 2007 SCC Online Cal 664, for the

proposition that neither Section 114 nor Order XLVII of the Code of Civil

Procedure apply in terms to the writ jurisdiction and, therefore, there is no

limitation in respect of a review application in connection with a writ

proceeding. It was also held therein that nomenclature does not determine

the nature of an application, and it is well within the jurisdiction of this

Court to invoke its powers as a court of records and/or review or revisit its

own judgments.

19. Learned counsel for the PNB, on the other hand, contends that the bank

duly sought to comply with the orders of this Court but due to inaction on

the part of the insurance company, the orders could not be complied with.

Thus, the bank does not have any liability in non-compliance of the said

order in any event, and the contempt proceedings ought to be dropped as

against the bank.

9

20. It is submitted that the bank did its very best to comply with the orders,

also by seeking in a parallel proceeding before a coordinate Bench extension

of the time to upload the specific data, and a formal communication was

served on the insurance company on August 30, 2024 by the bank, despite

which the insurance company chose not to act on the same.

21. Learned counsel points out that as per direction of this Court, the insurance

company was impleaded as a party to the contempt application.

22. Learned counsel for the bank contends that the recall applications, having

been filed after an unexplained delay of more than 17 months from the date

of the parent orders, only to evade the contempt, are not maintainable and

are time-barred. Even otherwise, there is limited scope of recall in a

disposed-of matter and the remedy of the insurance company, at best, lay in

a formal review petition or an appellate challenge before the competent

forum. A recall application, it is argued, cannot be used as a disguised

mechanism to seek review of an order passed on merits.

23. Learned counsel for the bank further contends that the bank consistently

communicated orders of the court at an early stage, but the insurance

company sit tight over the matter. Hence, the insurance company cannot

feign ignorance now.

24. It is argued that there was no “misreporting” by the bank or submission of

erroneous data within the contemplation of Clause XVII (2) of the BSB

Scheme. Thus, the liability of the bank is not attracted. Moreover, the

premiums were duly deposited by the bank with the insurance company. It

was only due to technical glitches that the particulars of the insured

persons and other relevant details could not be uploaded. It is argued that

any systematic gaps or initial technical glitches in database synchronisation

10

cannot be attributed to the bank, which acted in good faith. Learned counsel

submits that it is not only the PNB which faced the glitch but also other

major banks, particularly rural banks across India, who also suffered these

exact same technical bottlenecks when uploading data to the Crop

Insurance Portal. The PNB, it is submitted, actually tried to upload the

farmers’ data in part before the cut-off date which led to severe server

lags/time-outs causing error in the system. In support of such submission,

the bank cites Bank of Baroda v. Vishnu Prakash & Anr., reported at 2024

(Supreme)(OnLine) NCDRC 960.

25. Learned counsel for the bank further cites D. Srinivas v. SBI Life Insurance

Co. Ltd., reported at (2018) 3 SCC 653, for the proposition that once an

insurance company accepts a premium, it establishes a strong legal

presumption that the insurance contract materialised. Such proposition, it

is argued, is also strengthened by the provisions of Section 64VB of the

Insurance Act, 1938.

26. Learned counsel for the bank next contends that under Clause VIII, sub-

clause (14) of the BSB Guidelines, an explicit statutory obligation is cast

upon the insurance company to proactively collect, obtain and verify details

of both loanee and non-loanee farmers from banking institutions and

intermediaries. However, the insurance company did not comply with the

same.

27. Learned counsel for the bank adds that this Bench is in seisin only of the

recall and contempt applications as those arise from orders passed by this

Bench and does not have regular determination to hear writ petitions. Thus,

in the event this court chooses to recall its orders passed in the writ

petitions, the appropriate course of action would then be to send the writ

11

petitions for a fresh hearing to the regular Bench having determination to

take up writ petitions, upon granting fresh opportunity to the parties to file

affidavits. Since the bank did not use any affidavit-in-opposition during

hearing of the writ petitions, such opportunity, it is submitted, may now be

given to the bank in such case.

28. Lastly, learned counsel for the bank cites Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank

Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda, reported at (2006) 5 SCC 399, and Ajay Kumar

Bhalla v. Prakash Kumar Dixit, reported at (2024) 12 SCC 159, to highlight

the contours of the contempt jurisdiction and appeal s from orders of

contempt.

29. It is submitted that since a challenge has been thrown by the recall

applications to the orders passed in contempt jurisdiction, which were

strictly speaking not orders passed in connection with the contempt or penal

action but went beyond the purview of the contempt jurisdiction, a regular

appeal would lie before the jurisdictional court having determination to take

up intra-court writ appeals and not the Bench having determination to take

up contempt appeals. Learned counsel relies on the scope of Section 19 of

the Contempt of Courts Act in this regard.

30. It may be noted here that although both the insurance company and the

bank filed their respective written notes of arguments, no such notes are

filed on behalf of the writ petitioners/agriculturists. The lack of proper

representation of the writ petitioners, however, at every stage of the

proceeding, is understandable and justified by the meagre financial means

of the agriculturists/writ petitioners, who patently come from marginalised

backgrounds in society. In any event, since oral arguments were advanced

by all sides previously, the matter is decided on the basis of the written

12

arguments, the materials before the court as well as the initial oral

submissions.

31. The instant lis involves the following cardinal issues:

(i) Whether the recall applications of the insurance company ought to be

dismissed as time-barred;

(ii) Whether the delay in making the claims/filing the writ petitions defeats

equity;

(iii) Whether this Court acted beyond jurisdiction in directing the BSB

Scheme to be virtually revived even after the expiry of its tenure;

(iv) Who has the liability, if any, for compensating the writ petitioners;

(v) The scope of the recall applications.

32. The findings on the above issues are as follows:

(i) Whether the recall applications of the insurance company ought

to be dismissed as time-barred

33. As rightly contended by the insurance company, this court, as a court of

records within the contemplation of Article 215 of the Constitution of India,

has plenary powers to correct its records in the event any gross error is

found to have been committed by the court. Such powers, vis-à-vis the writ

jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, are not strictly

governed by the provisions of the Limitation Act or the Code of Civil

Procedure, which are subordinate/servient statutes under the Constitution

of India.

34. Even otherwise, the recall application was filed within three years, which is

the residuary period of limitation under Article 137 of the Schedule to the

13

Limitation Act, which can be construed to be a ‘reasonable time’ for filing a

writ petition, although the provisions of the said Act may not be strictly

applicable.

35. Thus, the argument of the bank that the recall applications are time-barred

cannot be accepted.

(ii) Whether the delay in making the claims/filing the writ petitions

defeats equity

36. It is contended by the bank that the agriculturists/writ petitioners did not

make their claims within 48 hours from the loss suffered by them, as per

the mandate of the BSB Scheme. Undoubtedly, the Scheme envisages that

the claim has to be made within 48 hours. However, for whatever reasons

(to be discussed later in this judgment), the insurance policies of the writ

petitioners were still-born, in view of the premiums deposited by the

Kotulpur Branch of the PNB not being accompanied by the necessary

particulars and other documentation, which was mandatory under the

Scheme, read in conjunction with the Notification dated November 29, 2019.

Thus, since the policies never materialized and were non-existent, the time

within which the claims were made by the proposed insured persons pales

into insignificance. It is immaterial when the agriculturists made their

claims, since they had no insurance policies in the first place. Thus, the

delay in making the claims is entirely besides the issue.

37. The writ petitions were filed in the year 2021, within a reasonable period

after the expiry of the Scheme and only when the agriculturists/writ

petitioners realized that they had been taken for a ride down the garden

path, after having run from pillar to post to get their dues. Hence, by no

14

stretch of imagination can it be said that the relief sought by the writ

petitioners are to be shut out on the flimsy ground of delay.

38. Thus, both the above issues are held in favour of the writ petitioners.

(iii) Whether this Court acted beyond jurisdiction in directing the

BSB Scheme to be virtually revived even after the expiry of its

tenure

39. By the orders disposing of the writ petitions, dated December 18, 2023 and

January 22, 2024, the Court had directed the insurance company to extend

the date for depositing premiums under the BSB Scheme and for the bank

to go on paying the premiums after clearing the errors due on such count,

thus, virtually directing a revival of the Scheme. However, the benefits of a

Scheme are not renewable by the fiat of the Court, coming entirely within

the domain of policy decision of the Executive. Since the BSB Scheme

expired by February, 2020, even of the date of the filing of the writ petitions,

the Scheme was a dead horse, not capable of revival. Hence, on such count

alone, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law, being de hors the

jurisdiction of this Court.

40. Accordingly, sufficient grounds have been made out by the insurance

company for recall of the said orders.

(iv) Who has t he liability, if any, for compensating the writ

petitioners

41. This is the core issue involved in the proceeding. There are provisions galore

in the Scheme which mandate the nodal bank/concerned branch of the

bank to not only deposit the premiums with the insurance accounts but to

15

furnish detailed particulars of the insured persons along with consolidated

proposals/statements.

42. In the present case, a substantial portion of the premium deposited by the

writ petitioners was admittedly deposited by the PNB with the insurance

company within the cut-off period, the rest being deposited much thereafter.

However, Clause XVII (2) of the Scheme categorically provides that in case of

any substantial misreporting by the nodal bank/branch in case of

compulsory farmers’ coverage, the concerned bank shall be liable for such

misreporting.

43. Although sub-clause (3) of the said Clause is not applicable, as argued by

the insurance company, since it merely stipulates that mere

sanctioning/disbursement of crop loans, without explicit intent to raise the

crop, does not constitute acceptance of risk by the insurance company and

thus, is not germane, such provision is not attracted to the present case at

all.

44. However, several other provisions in the Scheme impose the liability on the

bank to furnish particulars, declarations and other documentation along

with the premiums, for the insurance policies to commence.

45. For example, sub-clause (3) of Clause X, pertaining to loanee farmers

(compulsory coverage), provides that the disbursing bank-branch/PACs will

prepare monthly statement of crop-wise and insurance unit-wise details of

crop insurance with premium as per the Seasonality Discipline. Such

Seasonality Discipline was considered in the order dated November 9, 2023

passed by the Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department in the light of the

Notification dated November 29, 2019, which incorporated the furnishing of

consolidated declarations/proposals to the insurance company within the

16

Seasonality Discipline. The said order of the Principal Secretary was given a

seal of the court by an order dated August 20, 2024 passed in MAT No.846

of 2022 by a Division Bench of this Court, directing the Principal Secretary

to consider representations of other agriculturists in the light of such

decision.

46. Again, sub-clause (5) of Clause X of the BSB Scheme provides that bank

branches of commercial banks and RRBs/nodal bank s in case of PACs

under its jurisdiction shall consolidate insurance proposals/statements

from their bank-branch/PACs under their jurisdiction respectively and

forward the same to the insurance company , along with details of

remittance/RTGS towards insurance premium in accordance with cut -off

dates as specified by the State Government for that particular crop and

season.

47. In the present case, admittedly, such information/particulars were not

provided by the bank, thus bringing the cases of the writ petitioners within

the purview of Clause XVII (2), being a case of “substantial misreporting” by

the nodal bank/branch in case of compulsory farmers’ coverage. Hence, it is

only the concerned bank which shall be liable for such misreporting as per

the said provision.

48. In order to absolve itself of such liability, the bank relies on Clause X (14) of

the BSB Scheme, which provides that insurance companies may also collect

the requisite information from the channel partner in same form ats.

However, such liability is only in respect of non-loanee farmers as per sub-

clause (14) itself, and the heading under which the same comes is “non -

loanee farmers (optional coverage)”. Even otherwise, the expression “may”,

as opposed to “shall”, has been used in the said provision, making it

17

optional for the insurance company to seek such clarification. Thus, the

said provision cannot cast a mandate on the insurance company in any

manner to seek any information.

49. The bank heavily relies on a supposed tec hnical glitch to justify non-

reporting of the particulars-in-question in respect of the writ petitioners.

50. However, the exact period of such glitch and the nature thereof remains

completely unexplained, both in the arguments and the written notes of

arguments filed by the bank. Taking shelter under a vague and fudged

concept of “technical glitch” is evidently a convenient escape route for the

bank to deny its palpable liability for the breach of its mandatory duties

under the Scheme.

51. The bank relies on Vishnu Prakash (supra)

1

, where the National Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) was dealing with similar

situations. However, the question which arose there was whether the bank

provided data after the cut-off date. In the said case, as narrated in the

judgment itself, the proposals were received by the insurance company from

the bank on the last date of the cut-off period but after the office hours of

the insurance company. In such circumstances, it was observed by the

NCDRC that Government companie s like the insurance company in those

cases are not expected to raise such objections or proposals having been

received after office hours and, thus, held that there was sufficient

compliance.

52. As opposed thereto, in the present case, not only during the s tipulated

period, but even long thereafter, during the entire tenure of the Scheme,

1

Bank of Baroda v. Vishnu Prakash & Anr. , reported at 2024 (Supreme)(OnLine)

NCDRC 960

18

there was no visible effort on the part of the bank to communicate the

particulars, proposals and/or declarations required to the insurance

company. Mere deposit of premiums without such particulars would not give

rise to any liability on the part of the insurance company to open policies in

the names of the writ petitioners/cultivators at all.

53. Moreover, in the present case, unlike the cited decision, the court is not

considering a usual case of opening an insurance policy but is looking at a

particular regime contemplated under a beneficial scheme floated by the

State Government, that is, the BSB Scheme. Thus, the general principles

governing insurance policies cannot be invoked.

54. The bank relies on Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, which provides that

no insurer shall assume any risk in India in respect of any insurance

business on which premium is not ordinarily payable outside India unless

and until the premium payable is received by him or is guaranteed to be

paid.

55. However, as discussed above, the said general proposition cannot be made

applicable here. We are not looking at an ordinary insurance scheme

between the insured person and the insurance company but a specific

benefit given under a particular scheme. It is the provisions of the Scheme

which are to be looked into for the purpose of ascertaining whether liability

of the insurance company was commenced at all.

56. The BSB Scheme was a beneficial one for agriculturists, where the State

Government undertook to give 100% coverage. Within the contemplation

thereof, upon the loanee farmers depositing the premiums, a token amount

would be deducted from their loan accounts and their deposits would be

matched by larger contributions by the bank as well as the State, in the

19

proportions as stipulated in the Scheme, ultimately to be covered by the

State Government. Thus, for the insurance company to come into the

picture, the threshold condition of the bank uploading the necessary

particulars and declarations was a sine qua non. Only upon such act on the

part of the bank would the policies materialize, then casting liability on the

State and the insurance company in terms thereof.

57. In D. Srinivas (supra)

2

, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the liability of

the insurance company commenced with the acceptance of the premium.

However, the said judgment was rendered in the general context of an

insurance policy and not under any particular scheme and, thus, the ratio

laid down therein is not applicable in the facts of the present case.

58. Under Clause XXV of the Scheme, the particulars and relevant documents

were to be uploaded in the State Government Crop Insurance Portal along

with deposit of the premiums. There is no specific allegation made by the

bank in respect of the said portal having any technical issues at the relevant

juncture, nor has the bank furnished any material before the court, either in

its arguments or even in its written notes of arguments and/or the pleadings

filed in connection with the recall application or the contempt application, to

the effect that other branches of the bank than the Kotulpur branch were

similarly suffering for the entire period of the Scheme.

59. Sub-clauses (5) and (7) of Clause XVII mandated the bank branches to

consolidate proposals/statements and forward those to the insurance

company along with dues of remittance/RTGS towards the insurance

premiums. It is the bank which was responsible under the Scheme to verify

and send it to the PAC for being consolidated and sent to the nodal banks,

2

D. Srinivas v. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., reported at (2018) 3 SCC 653

20

which would then submit crop-wise and insurance unit-wise crop insurance

declaration in prescribed format along with the premiums within stipulated

time, with details, to the insurance company.

60. There was no mandate within the four corners of the Scheme that such

information had to be furnished to the insurance company only through the

National Crop Insurance Portal. The requirement of uploading on the said

Portal is found in Clause XXV of the Scheme, which merely provides that the

State Government will endeavour to integrate all the stakeholders on a

single IT platform to ensure better administration, coordination an d

transparency for getting real-time information and monitoring in a phased

manner in consultation with the stakeholders, the idea being to speed up

service delivery, unified fragmented databases, achieve a single view of data,

elimination of manual processes and to provide insurance services to

farmers faster than before. The Department of Agriculture, as per the

Scheme, was to take an initiative to design a web portal for crop insurance

to provide such a single IT-enabled platform for digitization of the process.

However, no mandate was cast in the Scheme restricting the furnishing of

information by the bank to the insurance company only through such

portal. Even in the NCDRC case cited by the bank, the bank had sent e-

mails to the insurance company giving the particulars. It remains

completely unexplained as to what prevented the bank in the instant case

from resorting to other means of communication than web uploading,

including e-mail, physical communication, etc. to furnish such information,

particularly keeping in view the fixed timelines under the Scheme.

61. Instead of doing so, the bank sat idle, cozy in its cocoon, in view of some

vague “technical glitch”, despite having appropriated premiums from the

21

agriculturists/writ petitioners. Hence, the liability lies squarely on the bank,

and none else, for the insurance policies never materializing.

62. As discussed above, such position was also asserted in the order of the

Principal Secretary, Government of West Bengal, dated November 9, 2023,

as sanctioned in MAT No.846 of 2022. Thus, the bank cannot re -agitate

such issue all over again.

63. Hence, this issue is decided against the bank, holding PNB to be liable for

compensating the loss suffered by the writ petitioners in view of their

insurance policies being rendered non -starters, having never left the

drawing board solely due to the inaction and negligence on the part of the

said bank.

(v) The scope of the recall applications

64. Learned counsel for the bank, for reasons beyond the limited

comprehension of the court, cites Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd.

(supra)

3

and Ajay Kumar Bhalla (supra)

4

, both of which pertain to the

contempt jurisdiction. In Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra)

3

, it was

held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that any direction issued or decision

made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties (even

if issued/taken in connection with a contempt proceeding) will not be in the

exercise of “jurisdiction to punish for contempt” and, therefore, not

appealable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the only

exception being where such direction or decision is incidental to or

inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt. It was

3

Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda , reported at (2006) 5 SCC

399

4

Ajay Kumar Bhalla v. Prakash Kumar Dixit , reported at (2024) 12 SCC 159

22

further held that if the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue

or makes any direction relating to the merits of the disputes between the

parties in a contempt proceeding, the remedy before the aggrieved person

would be an intra-court appeal or an SLP under Article 136 of the

Constitution, as the case may be.

65. Again, in Ajay Kumar Bhalla (supra)

5

, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated

the proposition laid down in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra)

6

.

66. However, in the present case, this Court is not dealing with an appeal

against its own order. As such, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cited

judgments is not germane at all.

67. Moreover, the challenge to the orders passed by the writ court has not been

thrown by the insurance company in the contempt proceedings but in

separate recall applications filed by it. Thus, the scope of the present

adjudication is no longer restricted to the contempt jurisdiction. As such,

the propositions laid down in the aforementioned decisions, relating

exclusively to the contempt jurisdiction, are not germane in the present

context.

68. The larger question which has been raised by the bank is whether this Court

can reopen the orders passed on merit in the writ petitions, after having

disposed of the said petitions finally, by way of recall applications.

69. It is, however, well-settled that the caption of an application is immaterial.

It is the meat of the contention and the content of the pr ayers and

averments of the application which are to be looked into by the Court to

ascertain the entertainability thereof.

5

Ajay Kumar Bhalla v. Prakash Kumar Dixit , reported at (2024) 12 SCC 159

6

Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda , reported at (2006) 5 SCC

399

23

70. In the present case, by way of the recall applications, the insurance

company has, in effect, invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court, as a

court of records under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, to correct its

records. Even otherwise, as a Chartered High Court, certain plenary powers

are vested in this court to correct its records, if need be. However, such

exercise is to be exercised only upon the discovery by the court of an ex facie

error going to the root of the records, and not at the drop of a hat.

71. In the light of the above legal position, it is found that on the date of the

impugned orders passed in the writ petitions as well as on the date of filing

of the writ petitions themselves, the Scheme, which was virtually directed to

be revived by this Court in the said orders, had already expired. Thus, the

orders passed in the writ petitions were vitiated by lack of inherent

jurisdiction of this court, hence making those amenable to be recalled.

72. Even otherwise, such an error comes within the purview of “error apparent

on the face of record”, permitting this Court to invoke the principles of

review jurisdiction, even if not under Section 114/Order XLVII of the Code of

Civil Procedure in terms, and to recall such orders.

73. The other issue which has been raised by the bank is that even if the parent

orders are recalled, this court ought to relegate the matters to the regular

Bench having determination at this juncture to hear writ petitions. Such

plea is specious but not tenable. When an order is recalled by a court, if

does so on the premise that it is exercising the jurisdiction which it had on

the date when the order under recall was passed, thus clothing such court

with the jurisdiction/determination vested in it on the said date. It is not

the date of filing of the recall application but the date of the order of recall

which is to be considered in the context of the powers and jurisdiction of the

24

concerned court/Bench. It would be an absurd proposition that although a

court can recall its orders, whereby the writ petitions were disposed of on

merits, it is toothless to revisit the matter in its entirety and pass fresh

orders on the merits of the case. Accepting such a proposition would give a

premium to parties who, after becoming of the views expressed by the court

during hearing of the recall applications, can forum-shop and avoid the

jurisdiction of such court by seeking the matter to be placed before the

regular Bench having jurisdiction of the date of the recall application; more

so, since such question has not been raised by the bank throughout the

prolonged hearing of the recall applications, but at the fag end of the

hearing, only at the stage of rejoinder arguments.

74. It would also allow unnecessary delay in the matter, since it is common

knowledge that all Bences of this Court, including the writ courts having

regular determination, being hard-pressed with their workload. Thus, the

ploy behind such submission of the bank is evidently to protract the

proceedings to the detriment of the writ petitioners/agriculturists, who feed

the society but themselves hail from marginalised sections of society and are

at the receiving end of the bank’s negligence due to no fault of their own.

75. Thus, such stand of the bank is deprecated by this court.

76. In any event, since this Bench had determination to take up the writ

petitions on the date of the order under recall, the said orders can be

revisited on merits if the recall applications are entertained, which this court

already has. Also, the court cannot lose sight of the fact that all parties,

including the bank, have advanced their arguments at length, over several

days and also on merits of the main writ petitions, during hearing of the

recall applications and the contempt applications. Hence, the Court cannot

25

shirk it duty at this stage by merely recalling its original orders and casting

the burden of disposal of the writ petitions afresh, upon a de novo hearing,

on the regular Bench having determination.

77. Thus, it is hereby held that this court has the power to rectify its own

orders, even if passed on merits, in view of those being patently without

jurisdiction, and re-adjudicate the issues involved in the writ petitions,

being vested with the jurisdiction which it had on the date of the orders

under recall. Even otherwise, in the light of the above discussions, this

court has ample power to recall the orders-in-question.

CONCLUSION

78. In view of the above findings, the orders disposing of the writ petitions are

required to be recalled and fresh orders passed in connection with the writ

petitions.

79. The only dilemma faced by the court is whether to merely direct the bank to

pay compensation to the writ petitioners, along with refund of the premiums

with interest, and leave it at that, or to relegate the writ petitioners to

regular civil suits to establish their claims of compensation by way of trial

on evidence.

80. Taking into account the practical reality of the long-drawn process in

disposal of civil suits, a phased and graded approach appears to be

preferable to the court.

81. Accordingly, the judgments dated December 18, 2023 passed in WPA

No.14180 of 2021, WPA No.13397 of 2021, WPA No.12836 of 2021, WPA

No.14182 of 2021, WPA No.14184 of 2021, WPA No.14190 of 2021, WPA

No.14194 of 2021, WPA No.1285 5 of 2021, WPA No.13388 of 2021 and

26

WPA No. 13403 of 2021 are hereby recalled and the said writ petitions are

revived and disposed of afresh in the following manner:

(i) The Punjab National Bank shall refund to the writ petitioners the

entire premium amounts paid respectively by the writ petitioners in

each of the cases within Thirty (30) days from date, with interest

calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from the dates of such

deposits to the date of such payment. In default, interest calculated

at the rate of 6% per annum on the entire amount (Principal + 12%

interest) as accrued then, shall be paid on and from the 31

st

day

following this judgment till the date of payment.

(ii) The writ petitioners shall, within August 31, 2026, file composite

claims of compensation in writing to the Punjab National Bank

annexing relevant documents, if any, quantifying the amount of

insurance coverage which they were deprived of due to non-opening of

policies under the Bangla Shasya Bima Scheme, also incorporating

the particulars of the financial losses/damages suffered by them and

other relevant details.

(iii) Upon receiving such claims, the Punjab National Bank shall decide on

such claims, if necessary by appointing valuers and competent

insurance personnel and obtain necessary reports from the

Meteorological Department of the State Government and/or other

authorities as necessary, at its own cost and on proper remuneration,

within October 31, 2026 and disburse the amounts so assessed in

favour of the respective writ petitioners to them, accompanied by

reasoned orders in writing in respect of each of the writ petitioners, as

to the basis and ratio of arriving at such assessment. In calculating

27

the compensation payable, if the same exceeds the quantum of

refunds with interest, the said quantum may be adjusted from the

total amount of compensation payable.

(iv) While so deciding, the Punjab National Bank shall give an opportunity

of hearing as well as opportunity of production of relevant documents,

if required, to the respective writ petitioners.

(v) In the event the writ petitioners are aggrieved by the compensation so

assessed by the Punjab National Bank, it will be open to the writ

petitioners to challenge the same before the appropriate court/forum.

82. In view of the parent orders having been recalled, the contempt applications

bearing CPAN 1991 of 2024, CPAN 1992 of 2024, CPAN 1993 of 2024, CPAN

1995 of 2024, CPAN 1996 of 2024, CPAN 1997 of 2024, CPAN 1998 of 2024,

CPAN 1999 of 2024, CPAN 2010 of 2024, CPAN 2012 of 2024 are dismissed

accordingly.

83. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of as

well.

84. There will be no order as to costs.

85. Urgent certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the

parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)