1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. OF 2014

In the matter of the public

interest of protecting the rights

under Articles 19 and 21 of the

Indian Constitution of the Emu

farmers in Maharashtra who

suffered losses in the project

introduced by NABARD;

AND

In the matter of the Emu

farming project introduced by

NABARD

In the matter of waiver to Emu

farmer for re – payment of

loans disbursed by the various

banks for the Emu farming

projects

1) Jayashree Ramakant Khadilkar – Pande , )

aged yrs, Residing at Navakal Office )

Building, Khadilkar Road, Navakal Path, )

Girgaon, Mumbai – 400004 )

Email id: )
 2

PAN No: )

2) Prakash Shashikant Sawant, aged yrs )

D/28, Govind Dalvi nagar, C. P. Road, opp. Hotel )

Nalanda, Near BEST Depot, Kandivali (E) )

Mumbai - 400101. ) Petitioners

Versus

1) Union of India )

Through the Secretary, Department of )

Agriculture, New Delhi. )

2) Union of India )

Through the Secretary, Department of )

Finance, New Delhi. )

3) The State of Maharashtra )

Through the Secretary, Department )

of Animal Husbandary )

Mantralaya Annexe, Mumbai )

4) National Bank of Agricultural and Rural )

Development (NABARD) Through its )

General Manager, having its Office at )

Bandra – Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), )

Mumbai- 400 051 )

 3

5) State Level Bankers’ Committee )

Convenor Bank of Maharashtra, Through its )

Chairman & Managing Director, Having )

its office at: "Lokmangal", 1501, Shivaji )

Nagar, Pune 411005. )

6) Bank of Baroda )

Through the Chairman & Managing )

Director (Maharashtra & Goa), Having )

Office at Sharda Centre, West Wing 2nd )

Floor, Khilare Path, 11/1. Erandwana, )

Pune – 411004 )

7) Syndicate Bank )

Through the Chairman & Managing )

Director (Maharashtra & Goa), Having )

office at Syndicate Bank Regional Office, )

Maker Tower, ‘E’ Wing, 2nd Floor, )

Cuffe Parade, MUMBAI - 400 005 )

8) Bank Of India )

7603, 2nd Floor, Swami Vivekanand Road, )

Opposite Natraj Market Malad West, )

Mumbai- 400064, Maharashtra )

9) STATE BANK OF INDIA, )

 4

Address: MADHULI BLDG, SHIV )

SAGAR ESTATE,ANNIE BESANT RD, )

MUMBAI )

10) Bank of Maharashtra )

Central Office, 'Lokmangal', 1501, )

Shivajinagar Pune-411005 )

11) CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA )

Address: MUMBAI MAIN OFFICE )

M G ROAD, FORT,MUMBAI 400023 )

State: MAHARASHTRA. )

12) IDBI Bank Ltd. )

Registered Office: IDBI Tower, WTC )

Complex, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, )

Mumbai 400005. )

13) Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan

Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021,

14) Maharashtra Gramin Bank 'JIVANSHREE'

Plot No 35 ,SECTOR G, NEAR HOTEL

VARSHA-IN Town Centre, CIDCO New

Aurangabad -431005

15). HDFC Bank Limited,

HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg

 5

Lower Parel (W), Mumbai - 400 013.

16) Corporation Bank

Shri K. V. Raghav Kamath General Manager

Corporation Bank Zonal Office-Maharashtra 201-202,

2nd floor, Stellar Enclave,

D.P.Road, Near Parihar Chowk, Aundh, PUNE-411 007

17) Wainganga Krishna Gramin Bank, Head Office - Solapur

18). Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank, Head Office

Hudkeshwar Ro1d, Shriram Arcade, Hudkeshwar, Nagpur,

lndia- plN 440 034,

19) Federal Bank Ltd, Laxmi Towers, A-1, 4Th Floor, Bandra

Kurla Complex,, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051

20) State Bank of Hyderabad, Zonal Office, (418), Plot No 1,

Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad, Aurangabad District –

431003. Email ID:dgmaur@sbhyd.co.in

21) Karad Urban Co-op Bank

243, A, GURUWAR PETH, TILAK PATH,

City: KARAD

District: SATARA

State: MAHARASHTRA

22) Thane District Central Co Op Bank Ltd (Head Office)

Behind Prabhat Cinema, Shivaji Path Road, Thane West, Thane

- 400601
 6

23) The Raigad District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.

MTNL Rd, Gurukrupa Co-Operative Housing Society, Opposite

MTNL Telephone Exchange, Mcch Society, Panvel, Navi

Mumbai, Maharashtra 410206

24) SINDHUDURG DIST CENT COOP BANK LTD

Address: PL.NO.32 NAVANGAR VIKAS PRADHIKARAN

SINDHUDURG NAGARI-OROS].

25). Pune District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd.

Addresss: 4-B, B J Road, Pune 411001

26) The Satara District Central Co-op Bank Ltd., Satara

New Administrative Building, Satara Pandharpur Road,'Kisan

Bhavan', C.T.S.No.523 A/1, Plot No. 5 & 6,

Sadarbazar, Camp, P.O. Box No.6, Satara - 415 001

27). The Sangli District Central Co Op Bank Ltd.

Padmabhushan Vasantdada Patil Road,

Karmveer Bhaurao Patil Chowk, Sangli 416416

28) LATUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK

LTD

Address: TILAK NAGAR MAIN ROAD LATUR 413512

State: MAHARASHTRA
 7

29). BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK

LTD.Bank: AXIS BANK

Address: RAJURIVES P.B NO 12, BEED 431122

MAHARASHTRA

State: MAHARASHTRA

30) The Ahmednagar District Central Co Operative Bank Ltd

Gunj Bazar, Ahmednagar HO, Ahmednagar – 414001

31) Nasik District Central Co Op Bank Limited

NDCC Bank Pradhan Office, Dwarka Circle Mumbai Highway, Raviwar Peth,
Raviwar Peth, Nashik, Maharashtra 422001.

32) The Jalgaon District Central Co Operative Bank Ltd

Head Office : 27, Ring Road, Jalgaon – 425001

33) Akola District Co-Op Bank list of IFSC Codes

The Akola District Central Coop. Bank Ltd., p.B.No. 8, Civil

Lines, S.A. College Road, Akola. 444001

34). Buldhana District Central Co-Operative Bank

2, Buldhana Road, Malkapur- 443101

Behind Baba General Stores.

35). Pune Urban Bank

Plot No. BC-2 , Gultekadi, Market Yard, Pune, Maharashtra

411037

36) THE VITA MERCHANTS CO-OP BANK LTD

 8

Address: YASHWANTNAGAR, SALSHINGE ROAD, VITA,

DIST SANGLI (MAHARASHTRA) 416601

State: MAHARASHTRA

District: SANGLI

TO

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND THE OTHER HONOURABLE PUISNE

JUDGES OF THIS HON’BLE COURT

THE HUMBLE PETITION

OF THE PETITIONER

ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION PETITION

1. Particulars of the cause/ order against which the Petition is

made:
The Petitioners are filing this public interest litigation to seek

wavier of loans disbursed to the Emu farmers in the State of

Maharashtra due to the losses incurred in the business due to

non – creation of conducive markets for bye – products of Emu

farming.
2. The Petitioners state that the Emu farming scheme was

introduced by the Agricultural ministry of the Union of India in

2004. The Agricultural Ministry introduced Emu as a competent

 9

bird for poultry farming, without detailed research about the

saleable value of the bird and creating markets for the same.
3. The Petitioners state that many farmers were attracted to the

scheme of Emu farming in view of its promotion by the

Agricultural Ministry of the Union of India as well as the

Department of Animal Husbandry of the State of Maharashtra

promoted the said scheme of Emu farming.

I. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS

1. Petitioner No. 1 is an Editor of a daily newspaper

‘Navakal’, a social worker, chess champion. The

Petitioner No. 1 is leading an organization of

unorganized labourers such as house maids, agriculture

labours, daily wage workers, etc. Petitioner No. 1 being

an Editor of a newspaper and being a member of a labour

organization got introduced to the Emu farming scheme

which was failing day by day and the Emu – farmers

were getting burdened with the loans availed for Emu –

farming and from then onwards followed up the issue of

the failure of the Emu farming scheme introduced by the

Central Government and promoted by the State

Government.
2. The Petitioner No. 2 is one of the Emu Farmers who quit

his secured job in the private company as Field Officer

and entered into Emu Farming as allied business to

traditional farming with the help of loan availed from a

nationalized bank and now is not able to repay the said

loan due to the losses suffered by him in the said Emu

farming project.
 10

3. Respondents No. 1 is the Union of India through the

Department of Agriculture who declared and informed

that Emu can be considered as a bird competent for the

purpose of poultry farming in India and sent a proposal to

the Respondent No 4, National Bank of Agricultural and

Rural Development (popularly known as NABARD).

Respondent No. 2 is the Union of India through the

Department of Finance who declared the subsidies

through NABARD and granted finance to promote and

carry out the said business of Emu farming. Respondent

No. 3 State of Maharashtra through the Department of

Animal Husbandry promoted the scheme of Emu farming

as an allied stream of farming to the farmers in the State

of Maharashtra as per the directions of the Department of

Agriculture of the Union of India. Respondent No. 4 is

the National Bank of Agricultural and Rural

Development (popularly known as NABARD) who

prepared a draft of the scheme of Emu farming as a

bankable project and informed the banks in Maharashtra

to grant loans to farmers involved in Emu farming as an

allied business. Respondent No 5 is the State Level

Bankers’ Committee which has been envisaged as a

consultative and coordination body of all financial

institutions operating in each state. The Committee is

expected to discuss issues, consider alternative solutions

to the various problems in the field of banking

development and evolve a consensus for co-ordinate

 11

action by the member institutions. The Respondent No 6

– 38 are banks who have disbursed loans to the emu

farmers in the State of Maharashtra. All the Respondents

are amenable to the Writ Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble

Court.

II. DECLARATION AND UNDERTAKING OF PETITIONERS

1. That the present Petition is being filed in public interest. The

Petitioners does not have any personal interest in the matter.

2. That the entire litigation costs, including the Advocates fees and

other charges are being borne by the Petitioners.

3. That a thorough search has been conducted in the matter raised

through the Petition and all the material concerning the same

has been annexed to this Petition.

4. That to the best of the Petitioners’ knowledge and research the

issue raised was not dealt with or decided and a similar or

identical petition was not filed earlier by the Petitioner.

5. That the Petitioners have understood that in the course of

hearing of this Petition the Court may require any security to be

furnished towards costs or any other charges and the Petitioners

shall have to comply with such requirements.

6. In the absence of creation of conducive markets market for the

abovementioned scheme the citizens are left with no alternative

but to approach the Hon'ble Court seeking waiver of the loans

disbursed by the various banks in the State of Maharashtra to

the farmers opting for the scheme of Emu rearing and farming

promoted by the Agricultural ministry of the Union of India,

Department of animal husbandry of the State of Maharashtra

and the NABARD.

 12

7. The Petitioners submit that through this PIL they represent a

much wider discontent with the Emu farming of the number of

Emu Farmers spread throughout the State of Maharashtra and

the Petitioners has approached the various departments of the

State as well as the Union of India but to no avail. Till date

there is no concrete action except for various promises from the

various departments of the Government.

III. ISSUES:
i. The Scheme was introduced to the Indian farmers by the Union

of India as an allied business to farming which was suffering

losses to raise the standards of the farmers in India.

ii. The Union of India considered Emu as a competent bird for

poultry farming.
iii. The NABARD submitted as report mentioning the said scheme

as a bankable project for farmers and invited attention of the

farmers by advertising the scheme and grant of loans for the

said scheme.
iv. The banks providing loans had been conducting workshops

informing the benefits and the profitable value of the said emu

farming business to raise the number of Emu farmers without a

proper and detailed research regarding the new business.

v. The scheme was projected by the Agricultural Ministry of the

Union of India as well as the Ministry of Animal Husbandry of

the State of Maharashtra by advertising the saleable value of the

bird and the final profits of the products.

vi. There is no mentioning of creation of conducive markets for the

sale of the bird or the bye – products of the same in the said

project.
vii. Neither Department of Agriculture, Union of India nor

Department of Animal Husbandry State of Maharashtra did

 13

project any plan for development of markets for the Emu bye –

products.
viii. The farming cost of one bird was about Rupees 45 per

day and would be of saleable value only after 18 months. The

Emu farmers had to invest Rupees 45 per day till 18 months

without any returns. Which amounted to the cost of Rs 45 x 30

x 18 = 24300/- each bird. The Scheme suggested for rearing of

minimum of 10 pairs of bird and it was informed that every bird

will require an individual partner for mating. Thus the farmers

had to bear the rearing cost of the bird for 18 months which the

farmers raised through the loans.

ix. There was no detailed research by the Banks, NABARD, State

of Maharashtra or the Union of India before introducing the

said scheme
x. Thus the farmers have been put to teeth of the banks as debtors

by the Union of India and the State of Maharashtra by

promoting a business which may suffer losses where the

investments of the farmers gained zero returns and thus has put

the lives of various farmers to threat due to the loans and thus

have endangered the right to life of the farmers protected in

Article 21 of the Constitution.

xi. Thus the farmers are entitled to waiver of the loans disbursed

for the Emu farming for the protection of the Right to life under

Article 21 of Constitution of India of the emu farmers.

I. FACTS IN BRIEF CONSTITUTING THE CASE.

Introduction and Promotion of the scheme:

1) The Petitioners state and submit that the Union of India

introduced a scheme for rearing of Emu bird as a compatible

bird for poultry farming in the year 2004. The Petitioners were
 14

informed by the NABARD in a reply to an RTI application that

the Union of India through its Department of Agriculture

informed the NABARD that Emu is a bird competent for

poultry farming and NABARD may introduce it to the Poultry

Venture Capital Funds.

2) The Petitioners state and submit that NABARD vide a letter

dated 30/10/2004 informed the Maharashtra State Co –

Operative Bank Ltd. that the Emu farming Scheme can be

introduced and the said project can be considered for granting

loans and it can be deemed to be useful for banks, unemployed

persons, farmers and also hatcheries. The NABARD also sent a

model bankable report on Emu Farming to the Respondent No

5, the State Level Bankers’ Committee and all the Banks in the

State of Maharashtra. A copy of the letter of NABARD dated

30/10/2004 is hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit A.

3) The Petitioners state and submit that the NABARD prepared ‘A

MODEL BANKABLE PROJECT ON EMU FARMING’,

which gave details regarding Emu farming. The Report

mentioned that the said scheme of Emu farming was a bankable

project fit to running the business and hence the banks may

grant loans to the farmers for the said business. The said report

explained the detailed parameters regarding rearing and farming

of the bird Emu.

4) The Petitioners state and submit that there were various

workshops held by the Department of Animal Husbandry, State

of Maharashtra from the year 2006 – 2007. The State of

 15

Maharashtra started promoting the said scheme of Emu farming

by various advertisements and workshops. Copies of the letters

and advertisements issued by the Department of Animal

Husbandry, State of Maharashtra are hereto annexed and

marked as Exhibit B (colly).

5) The Petitioners state and submit that the MITCON institute

conducted a workshop from 23/03/2009 to 27/03/2009 for

promoting the Emu farming scheme and the train farmers for

rearing Emu birds. A copy of the certificate of workshop is

hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit C.

6) The Petitioners state and submit that the Department of

Veterinary Public Health conducted a workshop for training in

farmers for Emu farming. The workshop was conducted on 1 st

and 2nd November 2012. Copies of the advertisements and

certificates of workshop is hereto annexed and marked as

Exhibit D.

7) The Petitioners state and submit that the Maharashtra Centre for

Entrepreneurship Developments (popularly known as MCED)

an autonomous society under the Department of Industries,

State of Maharashtra conducted a workshop dated 12/08/2008

for training farmers for Emu farming and promoting the said

scheme. The MCED conduct various programs for development

of entrepreneurship in the citizen domiciled in the State of

Maharashtra. Copies of the advertisement and certificates of

the said workshops held by Maharashtra Centre for

 16

Entrepreneurship Developments are hereto annexed and marked

as Exhibit E.

8) The Petitioners state and submit that various banks as well as

NABARD issued various advertisements and conducted various

workshops, to promote Emu farming and training the farmers

for Emu farming. Copies of the advertisements and workshop

certificates are hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit F.

9) The Petitioners state and submit that the various agencies of the

Central Government and Government of Maharashtra along

with the Banks, NABARD and certain Emu hatching farms

took efforts to introduce and promote Emu farming in the State

of Maharashtra. Roughly around 4000 farmers around the State

of Maharashtra opted for Emu farming as an allied business to

farming.

10) The Petitioners state and submit that, some of the emu farmers

have opted for Emu farming quitting their secured jobs. Most of

the Emu farmers availed loans from various banks for the

purpose of Emu farming. Copies of various bank statements of

loan accounts of some Emu farmers are hereto annexed and

marked as Exhibit G.

MODEL BANKABLE PROJECT on EMU FARMING:

11) The Petitioners state and submit that the National Bank for

Agricultural and Rural Development prepared ‘A MODEL

BANKABLE PROJECT ON EMU FARMING’, which gave

details regarding Emu farming. The said project projected the

 17

Emu farming as a profitable business. The said report also

mentioned the availability of financial assistance, proposal of

workshops, backward linkages like climate for rearing the bird,

availability of Emu birds, availability of feed, availability of

veterinary aid, provision of training and experience, availability

of shed, breeding, pens, run – off area, and availability of

various equipments, forward linkages like sale of eggs and sale

of manure and empty feed bags. A copy of the model project is

hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit H.

12) The Petitioners state that the model project mentioned that

Emu was a compatible bird for poultry farming. It further stated

that:

* Emu birds reach their full size by the end of the 1st year.

* They grow up to 5.5 to 6 feet with a weight of about 40 –

60 kgs.

* The laying period of the bird in Maharashtra state starts

after 18 months.

* The eggs are dark bluish green in colour weighing about

400 – 700 grams.

* The eggs are laid during September to February; a bird

can lay 20 – 60 eggs in a season.

* The productive economic life of the bird is 20 – 25 years.

13) The Project Report also reported the economic importance of

Emu bird considering the saleable value of the meat, egg,

 18

waste, refined oil, etc. It also mentions the financial assistance

in the form of bank loans with refinance facility from

NABARD is available for establishing Emu farm and

NABARD would provide consultancy services for large

commercial projects. The utility of the bird and the cost of the

same are as follows as per the said report:

Boneless meat (43%) : Rs. 250/- per kg

Bone meat (14%) : Rs. 200/- per kg

Feather & Skin (5%) : Rs. 200/- + Rs. 1000/-

Fat (22%) : Rs. 1000/- per kg

Leg skin (3%) : Rs. 500/-

Neck (4%) : Presently Useable but not saleable

Blood (3%) : Presently Useable but not saleable

Waste (4%) : Presently Useable but not saleable

(96% of the bird is useable)

Refined Oil : Rs. 3000/- per litre.

14) The Petitioners state and submit that despite of mentioning

various usages of the Emu bird the NABARD report did not

focus on any other source except for sale of eggs as a forward

linkage for the Emu farming in Maharashtra.

15) The Petitioners state and submit that the NABARD report

mentioned the lending terms for the said project of Emu

farming. The said project formulated the total cost for the pair
 19

of 10 Emu birds including the fixed cost and recurring cost up

to the income generating stage (up to 8 months) to be

Rs.3,00,000/- ( Rupees Three Lakhs only). The project report

suggested that out of the total project cost for Emu farming the

same has to be raised as down payment of 15% from the

beneficiary and the rest 85% will be the total finance outlay to

be considered as Bank loan at the interest loan of 12% per

annum. The repayment of the loan amount should be done

within a period of seven (7) years including first

grace/moratorium/gestation period in suitable monthly

installments (6/year) October to March only. From it is

observed that after repayment of loan and interest thereon,

sufficient amount (average Rs. 102815/- per year) is the

beneficiary during the project period besides the stock value of

fixed assets of Rs. 35000/- at the end of project (7 years). For

assured repayment a tripartite agreement between the financing

bank, hatchery owner and the borrower may be executed.

16) The Petitioners state and submit that the project report though

stated about the repayment loan by buy – back policy of eggs

by the hatcheries but did not create any conducive market for

bye – products of Emu bird or any other market for eggs of

Emu.

Emu Farming:

17) The Petitioners state and submit that the Emu birds Emu birds

reach their full size by the end of the 1st year. The birds grow up

to 5.5 to 6 feet with a weight of about 40 – 60 kgs. The laying

 20

period of the bird in Maharashtra state starts after 18 months.

The eggs are dark bluish green in colour weighing about 400 –

700 grams. The eggs are laid during September to February; a

bird can lay 20 – 60 eggs in a season. The productive economic

life of the bird is 20 – 25 years.

18) The Petitioners state and submit that the emu farmers were to

invest in the bird without any income till the bird starts laying

eggs i.e. till 18 months. The Emu farmers were told that each

bird will need a separate partner for mating and thus they need

to be in pairs. The Emu farmers had to buy birds in pairs and

thus the number of pairs varied for 5 to 50 pairs.

19) The Petitioners state and submit that the Emu birds were

required to be fed with the special fodder available in market

produced by companies like the Venkys’ and the Godrej, which

ultimately costs about Rs 45 – 50 for each bird per day and

ultimately cost Rs 100 for a pair per day.

20) The Petitioners state and submit that the Emu farmers were

bearing the cost of the birds till it attained the age of 18 months

and start laying eggs. The Emu farmers had almost invested

about (100X30X18 = 54000/-) Rupees Fifty four thousand for

each pair in the non productive period of 18 months and are till

date bearing the costs of rearing the bird with the rate of Rs 100

per day per pair. The farmers had a variable amount of pairs

varying from 5 pairs to 100 or more pairs and thus the rearing

costs varied in the abovementioned proportion.

Loans and Schemes applied for by the Farmers

 21

21) The Petitioners state and submit that the farmers in the State of

Maharashtra were attracted to the scheme of Emu farming by

the advertisements of the State Government, NABARD and

various banks. The farmers opted to attend the various

workshops arranged by the abovementioned Respondents to

encourage and literate farmers in the field of Emu farming.

Thus the farmers were encouraged by the workshops held by

the Respondents for availing loans for the said scheme of Emu

farming. Copies of loan account details of certain farmers are

hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit I.

22) The Petitioners state and submit that the more than 2000

farmers in Maharashtra opted to go for the scheme of Emu

farming and availed loans from various banks. The NABARD

has released a list of some 900+ farmers who have availed loans

from various banks for Emu farming but there seem to be many

more such farmers. The Petitioners are making efforts to

receive information of loans disbursed from various banks

throughout the State of Maharashtra. A copy of the chart

released by NABARD is hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit

J.

23) The Petitioners state and submit that the Emu farmers availed

loans of minimum 3 lakhs up to 50 Lakh from various banks.

The farmers made repayment of the loans until the buy – back

scheme was functioning properly with the hatcheries as

mentioned in the tripartite agreements. After few years the

hatcheries were closed down and the Emu farmers were left
 22

with no market for Emu eggs. The Emu farmers tried to get into

touch with the hatchery owners for continuing with the buy –

back scheme but to no avail. A copy of a specimen tripartite

agreement of one of the farmers is hereto annexed and marked

as Exhibit K.

24) The Petitioners state and submit that the Emu farmers have

availed the loans from various banks and after default by some

of the farmers the banks have initiated recovery proceedings

against all the defaulter farmers. The various banks have

initiated various court proceedings against most of them and the

banks have attached the mortgaged properties of the Emu

farmers and even courts have attached the mortgaged

properties. Copies of the various awards and orders of DRT and

DRAT courts are hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit L.

Attempts for sale

25) The Petitioners state and submit that, Emu farmers made

various efforts for the sale of Emu bye – products but were

unsuccessful. The Emu farmers were assured of purchasing of

the eggs at the rate of Rs 600 – 750 each and that of the chicks

born at the rate of Rs 1200/- each as per the agreement. A copy

of the agreement is hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit M.

26) The Petitioners state and submit that the hatcheries bought

back the eggs till 2009 but then onwards they refused to buy

back the eggs and thus then the business started suffering

losses. The Emu farmers were left with no market for the sale
 23

of the eggs or the bird. The only known source was the

hatcheries but it had refused to buy the eggs.

27) The Petitioners state and submit that some of the Emu farmers

enquired with various hotels and restaurants for sale of Emu

eggs as explained in various workshops. The Hotel industry in

India refused that any such birds are made available for eating

in India.

28) The Petitioners state and submit that some of the Emu farmers

also approached various malls and agro related retail shops but

could not gain any success.

29) The Petitioners state and submit that finally the Emu farmers

having left with no option approached the District Collector

Thane with a proposal of ‘Emu Food Festival’. The District

Collector Thane helped the Emu farmers by permitting for such

festival and various dignitaries such as the Guardian Minister of

Thane District, The District Collector of Thane along with

various other officials attended the said Emu Food Festival but

all hesitated to show faith in it and the said attempt of the

farmers was a failure. A copy of the advertisements of the said

“Emu Food Festival” are hereto annexed and marked as

Exhibit N.

30) The Petitioners state and submit that the Emu farmers were left

with no option for sale of the bird or its bye – products as

neither the Central Government nor the State Government has

created any market for sale of the bird or its bye – products.
 24

Various Representations

31) The Petitioners state and submit that the emu farmers made

various representations to various authorities in the Central and

the Central Government regarding the said issue of bankruptcy

of Emu Farmers.

32) The Petitioners state and submit that the Emu farmers made

representation to Mr. Ganesh Naik, the then Guardian Minister

of Than District seeking cognizance on the issues of Emu

farmers vide a letter dated 20/07/2011. A copy of the letter

dated 20/07/2011 is hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit O.

33) The Petitioners state and submit that, the Department of

Agriculture, Union of India vide letter dated 26/04/2011 issued

directions for considering delay in repayment of loan for Emu

farmers. A copy of the letter dated 26/04/2011 is hereto annexed

and marked as Exhibit P.

34) The Petitioners state and submit that the Emu Farmers made

representations to the Thane District Co – Operative Bank vide

a letter dated 26/12/2012 seeking waiver of loans disbursed to

the Emu farmers in the District of Thane. A copy of the letter

dated 26/12/2012 is hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit Q.

35) The Petitioners state and submit that the Emu farmers made

representations to the Assistant Registrars vide letter dated

02/01/2013 and to the Tehsildar of Bhiwandi vide a letter dated

28/02/2013 sought relief of waiver from loans availed for Emu

 25

farming. Copies of the letters dated 02/01/2013 and 28/02/2013

are hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit R and S.

36) The Petitioners state and submit that the Emu Farmers made

representations to the Thane District Collector vide letter dated

01/03/2013 and vide letter dated 05/03/2013 to the Live Stock

Extension Officer, Bhiwandi Tehsil seeking waiver of loans

granted for Emu farming. Copies of letters dated 01/03/2013

and 05/03/2013 is hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit T and

U.

37) The Petitioners state and submit that, the Emu farmers on

19/03/2013 the Emu farmers made representation to the Chief

Minister of the State of Maharashtra seeking waiver of the

loans issued to the Emu farmers by various banks. A copy of the

letter dated 19/03/2013 is hereto annexed and marked as

Exhibit V.

38) The Petitioners state and submit that the Thane District Co –

operative Bank, Thane vide letter dated 23/04/2013 sought

relief for Emu farmers by releasing some sort of package from

NABARD. A copy of the letter dated 23/04/2013 is hereto

annexed and marked as Exhibit W.

39) The Petitioners state and submit that the Emu farmers vide

letter dated 10/05/2013 inquired the Thane District Collector

regarding the assurances made by the then Adivasi

Development Minister who visited the Emu Food Festival and

assured the Emu farmers for a help of Rs._____________

towards repayment of loan for Emu farming. A copy of the

 26

letter dated 10/05/2013 is hereto annexed and marked as

Exhibit X.

40) The Petitioners state and submit the Emu farmers in Thane

District went on a one day Hunger – strike on 28/05/2013

seeking some reliefs regarding loans disbursed to Emu farmers.

41) The Petitioners state and submit that the Emu farmers even sat

on a ‘Dharna’ at the Azad Maidan, Mumbai seeking reliefs to

the Emu farmers who have severed losses in Emu farming and

are not able to repay the loans.

42) The Petitioners state and submit that the State of Maharashtra

vide letter dated 18/06/2013 sought information from banks

regarding the details of the loans in a prescribed format. A copy

of the letter dated 18/06/2013 is hereto annexed and marked as

Exhibit Y.

43) The Petitioners state and submit that Mr. Harshawardhan Patil,

the then Minister of Co – Operative Affairs, State of

Maharashtra vide letter dated 28/08/2013, 17/09/2013 and

28/04/2014 requested and also directed NABARD, SLBC and

various Co – Operative Banks to avoid taking coercive steps

against the Emu farmers. Copies of the letters dated

28/08/2013, 17/09/2013 and 28/04/2014 are hereto annexed and

marked as Exhibit Z, AA and BB.

44) The Petitioners state and submit that, the NABARD vide letter

dated 13/12/2013 made a representation for considering the

case of Emu farmers for exemption of repayment of loans. A

 27

copy of the letter dated 13/12/2013 is hereto annexed and

marked as Exhibit CC.

45) The Petitioners state and submit that the Secretary, Department

of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and

Fisheries vide a letter dated 21/03/2014 made representations to

the Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy

Development and Fisheries of the Union of India to consider

the case of Emu farmers for Exemption from loans.

46) Being aggrieved by the inaction of the Respondents in availing

conducive markets for Emu bye – products, other means for re

– payment of loans incurred by the farmers and steps for

exemption of loans of the Emu farmers, the Petitioner seeks to

approach this Hon’ble Court in its appellate side jurisdiction

under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India on the

following amongst other grounds each of which are without

prejudice to each other:

GROUNDS

A. The Scheme was introduced to the Indian farmers by the

Union of India as an allied business to farming which was

suffering losses to raise the standards of the farmers in India.

B. The Union of India considered Emu as a competent bird for

poultry farming.
C. The NABARD submitted as report mentioning the said

scheme as a bankable project for farmers and invited

attention of the farmers by advertising the scheme and grant

of loans for the said scheme.

 28

D. The banks providing loans had been conducting workshops

informing the benefits and the profitable value of the said

emu farming business to raise the number of Emu farmers

without a proper and detailed research regarding the new

business.
E. The scheme was projected by the Agricultural Ministry of the

Union of India as well as the Ministry of Animal Husbandry

of the State of Maharashtra by advertising the saleable value

of the bird and the final profits of the products.

F. There is no mentioning of creation of conducive markets for

the sale of the bird or the bye – products of the same in the

said project.
G. Neither Department of Agriculture, Union of India nor

Department of Animal Husbandry State of Maharashtra did

project any plan for development of markets for the Emu bye

– products.
H. The rearing cost of one bird was about Rupees 45 per day

and would be of saleable value only after 18 months. The

Emu farmers had to invest Rupees 100 per day per pair till 18

months without any returns. Which amounted to the cost of

Rs 100 x 30 x 18 = 54000/- each pair. The Scheme suggested

for rearing of minimum of 10 pairs of bird and it was

informed that every bird will require a different partner for

mating. Thus the farmers had to bear the rearing cost of the

bird for 18 months which the farmers raised through the

loans.
I. There was no detailed research by the Banks, NABARD,

State of Maharashtra or the Union of India before introducing

the said scheme;

 29

J. That the banks have initiated recovery proceedings and thus

the banks and the courts have started attaching the properties

mortgaged by the farmers;

K. Thus the farmers have been put to teeth of the banks as

debtors by the Union of India and the State of Maharashtra

by promoting a business which may suffer losses where the

investments of the farmers gained zero returns and thus has

put the lives of various farmers to threat due to the loans and

thus have endangered the right to life of the farmers protected

in Article 21 of the Constitution.

L. Thus the farmers are entitled to waiver of the loans disbursed

for the Emu farming for the protection of the Right to life

under Article 21 of Constitution of India of the emu farmers.

47.The Petitioners submit that they have not filed any other

petition in respect of the present issue before this Hon’ble

Court or the Supreme Court of India.

48.The Petitioners are residing at Mumbai Respondents are

registered offices in Mumbai and New Delhi therefore the

cause of action has arisen within the original side jurisdiction

of this Hon’ble Court, hence, it can admit the petition and

hear it.

49.The Petitioners states that they have no other alternative

efficacious remedy but to approach this Hon’ble Court and

the relief as prayed for if granted shall be complete.

50.The Petitioners will rely on documents a list whereof is

annexed hereto.

51.There is no delay or laches in filing this petition.

 30

52.The Petitioners have affixed the required court fees ____to

this Petition.

53.No caveat with regard to the subject matter of this petition

has been received by the Petitioners till date.

THE PETITIONERS THEREFORE PRAYS

A. For a Writ of Mandamus or any writ, order, direction in the

nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order

directing the Respondents for waiver of loans with interest

disbursed for the Emu farming scheme in the State of

Maharashtra;
B. In the alternative for a Writ of Mandamus or any writ, order,

direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate

writ, order directing the Respondents to release 100 % subsidy

for repayment of the remaining loans;

C. For a writ of Prohibition or a writ, order or direction in the

nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order of

direction restraining the Respondents from taking any coercive

steps of any nature whatsoever in relation repayment of loans

disbursed for the scheme of Emu farming;

D. For a Writ of Mandamus or any writ, order, direction in the

nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order

directing the Respondents to release the properties attached

which were mortgaged for the loans;

E. Till the final hearing and pendency of this Public Interest

Litigation, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the

operation of the all the pending matters before various courts

 31

such as Debt Recovery tribunals for the repayment of loan

disbursed for the scheme of Emu farming;

F. Till the final hearing and pendency of this Public Interest

Litigation, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to release

subsidy for repayment of the remaining loans;

G. Till the final hearing and pendency of this Public Interest

Litigation, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to restrain the

Respondents from taking any further steps of any nature

whatsoever in relation to repayment of loans disbursed for the

scheme of Emu farming;

H. For ad interim relief in terms of prayers C and D;
I. For any other orders that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit;

Petition drawn by me

Mihir Desai
Advocate for the Petitioners Petitioner

VERIFICATION

I, the Petitioner No.

abovenamed residing at

do hereby state and solemnly declare that what is stated in paras No.

to is true to my own knowledge and whatever is

stated in remaining paras no. to para is stated on information and

belief which I believe the same to be true.

Solemnly declared at Mumbai }

On this day of October 2014 } Petitioner

Identified by me
 32

MIHIR DESAI Before me

Advocate for the Petitioners