Farmer societies too eligible for power subsidy, high court rules | Bengaluru News
Bengaluru: The Dharwad bench of Karnataka high court instructed the state govt and electricity distribution companies to modify their current agricultural power subsidy policy framework to ensure fair treatment between farmer societies and individual farmers. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum issued this ruling, declaring the Sept 4, 2008 govt order ‘unconstitutional’. The govt order withholds power tariff subsidy from farmer societies solely because their collective consumption surpasses the specified horsepower limit.“The authorities must frame and notify appropriate guidelines within a reasonable period (preferably six months) to extend power tariff subsidies to registered farmer societies, in a manner that aligns with the principles of equality, promotes cooperative farming, and advances the broader goals of sustainable agricultural development,” the judge stated in his order.Two farmers’ cooperative societies from Athani taluk in Belagavi district contested Hubballi Electricity Supply Company Ltd’s (Hescom) demand notice and the govt order. The petitioners established lift irrigation projects on the river Krishna, benefiting 200 acres and 103 acres in Parthanahalli and Madhabhavi villages, costing approximately Rs 5.8 crore.The petitioners noted that Hescom sought Rs 3,995.2 crore in subsidies from state govt, which released Rs 5,067.7 crore. They claimed the state paid subsidies for unmetered installations, based on estimated consumption, contradicting the Electricity Act regulations and govt orders.The petitioner-society’s main complaint centres on the state’s constitutional duty to provide water access. They argued that farmers who formed societies to create lift irrigation schemes face discrimination, whilst individual IP holders receive subsidies for multiple IP sets. The petitioners contended that denying agricultural power tariff subsidies to marginal farmer societies, whilst granting them to individual farmers violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.The Hescom responded that the petitioners’ difficulties stemmed from the Covid pandemic. The state govt maintained that society members could access the scheme individually, but collective applications were excluded by policy. They specified a 10 HP meter limit for irrigation facilities. They suggested the petitioner-society approached court to avoid Hescom’s recovery proceedings.However, Justice Magadum observed that marginal farmers in collectives represent the same group eligible for individual subsidies. Denying subsidies to collectives solely for exceeding the 10 HP limit contradicts the goal of supporting small and marginal farmers. The power subsidy intends to make irrigation affordable, ensure fair water access, and promote sustainable farming, but excluding farmer societies undermines these objectives.
