Co-operative farm societies entitled to same power subsidies as individual farmers: Karnataka HC
The order passed last month by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum was recently made public.
'Farmers who organise themselves into societies to share irrigation resources and reduce costs should be incentivized, not penalized. The denial of the subsidy for collective consumption contradicts the purpose of the subsidy, which is to support the farming community,' the court held, while directing authorities to frame guidelines to extend power subsidies to farmer societies.
In this case, office-bearers of certain farmer societies had approached the court regarding a lift irrigation project that they had constructed on the River Krishna in Athani Taluk to benefit around 300 acres of land, arguing that the societies, unlike individual farmers, were not able to access subsidies for the benefit of marginalised farmers.
The counsel for the societies argued that this was a case where the subsidised power supply was denied to them only because they were in a society.
He argued that this was an arbitrary act since the power consumption between the societies and individuals was the same on a per capita basis.
The opposing counsel representing Hubli Electricity Supply Company (HESCOM) stated that bills were raised proportionate to the power consumption of the society, and they were bound to pay the outstanding bills, while the societies had assented to the conditions of the agreement in 2016.
The Advocate General representing the state also pointed out that the farmers could avail of a subsidy on an individual basis, but having joined the society, they could not do so, having exceeded the limit on power consumption.
It was also argued that the petition of the societies had only been commenced after HESCOM initiated recovery proceedings for the outstanding bills.
While considering the matter, the court stated, 'The central issue arises from whether denying power tariff subsidies to societies of farmers while granting the subsidy to individual farmers constitutes an arbitrary classification and violates the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution…. The current classification between individual farmers and farmer societies is arbitrary and lacks a rational nexus with the objective of the subsidy'.
However, the court noted that apart from the matter of subsidy, the societies would still have to settle the outstanding payment with HESCOM and could not use the argument of restrictions during the Covid period.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
29 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Over 20 states sue Trump over $6.8 billion frozen funds for after-school, summer programmes
More than 20 states have sued US President Donald Trump over the freezing of about $6.8 billion in funding for after-school, summer programmes and other programmes. The states have argued that the Donald Trump administration has violated the US Constitution by not considering Congress's sole authority over spending. (Bloomberg) Attorney generals or governors from 24 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration in federal court in Providence, Rhode Island. They argued that the US department of education and the office of management (OMB) and Budget brought chaos to schools across America by freezing funding for six programmes approved by Congress. North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson told ABC News, "This is plainly against the law." He went on to explain from a legal standpoint that this is "against the Constitution, against the Impoundment Act. This is not a hard case". According to the Impoundment Control Act, 1947, Congress must note and review the executive branch withholdings of budget authority. This requires the President to report any such withholdings to Congress. ALSO READ | 20 US states sue Trump administration over sharing of medical aid data with deportation officials While the Trump administration has been going after Ivy League universities head-on, freezing millions and billions of dollars in funding, the freeze also extended to the money used to support migrant farm workers and their childrens' education, recruitment and training of teachers, English proficiency learning and academic enrichment, besides the after-school and summer programmes. The lawsuit filed against Trump said that his administration was legally required to release the funds to the states by July 1, Reuters reported. Instead, the education department notified them on June 30 that the funds would not be released under those programmes as per the deadline, citing the change in administration as its reason. At the time, an OMB spokesperson reportedly said, "ongoing programmatic review" of education funding and said initial findings showed what he termed as a misuse of grant funds to "subsidize a radical leftwing agenda." The department also raised objections to the grant money being used to support scholarship for immigrant students and LGBTQ-themed lessons. The Democratic-led states said that the freeze has resulted in cancellations of summer school and after-school programmes and the halting of other initiatives, with little time for schools to fill in the gaps in their budget. ALSO READ | Trump administration sues California over transgender athletes in schools The states have argued that the Trump administration has violated the US Constitution by not considering Congress's sole authority over spending and went against the federal administrative law by freezing funds without any logical explanation. They also said that the administration failed to abide by the Impoundment Control Act, which prevents the executive branch from single-handedly refusing to spend funds approved by Congress unless certain procedures are followed. Jackson further told ABC News, "If the courts don't act promptly, the consequences will be dire." He warned that districts face the threat of immediate harm as the school year is nearing. The North Carolina Attorney General said that the massive effect of the pause could also result in the firing of about 1,000 educators in the district. "Everybody knows when it comes to juvenile crime, you want a safe place for teenagers to be able to go, to be able to keep them out of trouble," Jackson said, adding that elimination of after-school programmes across the US has never been considered a "good idea". ALSO READ | 12 states sue Donald Trump administration in trade court to stop tariff policy Alabama State Superintendent of Education Eric Mackey said that this will affect the students with the "greatest need". He told ABC News, "The loss of funding for those rural, poor, high poverty school districts, is just going to be, you know, more fuel for the fire that makes it more difficult to educate children in those communities." Christy Gleason, executive director of Save the Children Action Network, which provides after-school programming for 41 schools in rural areas of Washington and across the South, where the school year is set to begin as soon as August, said, "Time is of the essence." "It's not too late to make a decision, so the kids who really need this still have it," she added.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Ukraine's Zelensky Proposes New PM, Defence Minister In Major Reshuffle
Kyiv: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Monday proposed a new prime minister and defence minister, part of a major cabinet reshuffle he said would "renew" government more than three years into Russia's invasion. Economy minister Yulia Svyrydenko will become prime minister, Zelensky said, while incumbent prime minister Denys Shmygal is expected to replace defence minister Rustem Umerov. The shakeup, the biggest since the war began, comes after months of setbacks for Ukraine on the battlefield and escalating Russian aerial attacks on Ukrainian cities. "I have proposed that Yulia Svyrydenko lead the government of Ukraine and significantly renew its work," Zelensky wrote on social media. "I look forward to the presentation of the new government's action plan in the near future," he added. In a later evening address, Zelensky announced Shmygal would become defence minister. "Denys Shmygal's vast experience will certainly be useful in the position of Minister of Defence of Ukraine," he added later, without providing further detail. Svyrydenko, 39, gained prominence this year for helping broker a minerals deal with the United States that nearly derailed ties between Kyiv and its most important military ally. Shmygal, 49, had served as prime minister since 2020, steering the Ukrainian government through the COVID-19 pandemic and the start of Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022. - 'People are exhausted' - Shortly after Zelensky's announcement, Svyrydenko said Ukraine faced a "crucial time" and listed her priorities as "strengthening" Ukraine's economy, expanding domestic support programmes and scaling up weapons production. Ukraine's economy has been decimated by the Russian invasion, and Kyiv is reliant on tens of billions of dollars in annual support from Western countries to stay afloat. Both cabinet appointments will require approval by parliament, which has largely coalesced around Zelensky since the invasion and is unlikely to vote against him. "The government needs a change because people are exhausted," said Tymofiy Mylovanov, a former economy minister who worked with Svyrydenko. Mylovanov, who now heads the Kyiv School of Economics, said the changes would likely bring "a sort of freshness" after three and a half years of war. Zelensky said last week he was also considering naming Defence Minister Rustem Umerov as Ukraine's ambassador to Washington. Zelensky met with Umerov over the weekend, after which he said that "Ukraine needs more positive dynamics in relations with the United States and at the same time new steps in managing the defence sector of our state." The appointments come at a pivotal moment in the three-year conflict. Direct peace talks between Russia and Ukraine on ending the fighting have stalled, while the United States announced earlier that it would boost military support for Kyiv in a major about-turn.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
SC agrees to hear plea against UP govt's decision to merge primary schools
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a plea challenging the Uttar Pradesh govt's decision to merge over 100 primary schools with low student enrolment. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi agreed to list the matter in the week after advocate Pradeep Yadav, appearing for petitioner Taiyyab Khan Salmani, sought an urgent hearing. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Yadav said over hundreds of government schools would be shut and thousands of primary students would be out of school, being forced to study in neighbhouring schools, if the government order of June 16 was not stayed. He said the state govt's order was challenged before the high court but it dismissed the pleas on July 7. Justice Kant said though a policy decision, it was ready to examine the issue if government schools were being shut. The plea said on June 16, the additional chief secretary of state's Basic Shiksha Department issued an order directing for taking steps for pairing of the schools managed under the supervision and control of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and owned by the state government. "Consequent to which on dated June 24, 2025 the actual list of the schools which are being paired being 105 in numbers has been issued," the plea said. The high court dismissed the petitions on July 7 without considering the true facts and circumstances of the case that the said merger order will directly affect and destroy the already vulnerable education system in the state, it added. The petitioner argued that the policy decision was arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 21A of the Constitution as it offended the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the rules framed by the state government. The plea referred to Rule 4(1)(a) and said it was incumbent for the state government to establish a school with respect to children from Class 1 to 5 in the habitation where there was no school within a distance of a kilometer and the habitation having a population of at least 300 people.
