Meeta Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31866 of 2023 Petitioner :- Meeta Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Sinha,Deepali Srivastava Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pawan Kumar Singh,Vipul Kumar Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶1Heard Sri Kartikey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Vipul Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.4.

¶2By means of present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to decide the appeal/objection dated 18.10.2022 of the petitioner, which was registered in Dak Register on 31.10.2022 pending before him expeditiously within a stipulated period.

¶3Facts in brief are that Mr. Devi Shanker husband of the petitioner died due to drowing in pond on 12.09.2018 and report of aforesaid incident was lodged at P.S. Sarai Mamrez, District Prayagrag vide G.D. No.042. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for grant of ex-gratia payment under Mukhyamantri Kishan Evan Sarvhit Bima Yojna as the income of the family was below rupees seventy five thousand per annum and and the age of the deceased was 18 years of age at the time of death.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner was sustainable in view of the scheme in question but in most arbitrary manner the said claim was rejected vide order dated 25.04.2022. He further submits that the petitioner has already filed an appeal/objection against the said order, which is pending before the District Review Committee/ District Magistrate-C.R.O. Prayagraj.

¶5Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer and very fairly submits that, in case, any such objection is pending, the same would be decided by the concerned authorities.

¶6In this backdrop, learned counsel for Insurance Company states that at the stage of deciding the objection an opportunity may also be extended to the Insurance Company to file objection in the said proceeding.

¶7Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present writ petition pending, hence, the same is disposed of finally, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, with a direction to the second respondent i.e. District Review Committee/ District Magistrate-C.R.O. Prayagraj to take a final call in matter expeditiously, as per law preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order but certainly after affording opportunity to the Insurance Company. Order Date :- 2.11.2023 S.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad