# Gautam Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 12 ILRA 477
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-11-11
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 15983 of 2020
- **Bench:** Shashi Kant Gupta, Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gautam-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45619
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(A) Civil law - 'socio-beneficial scheme' -
'Mukhayamantri Kisan and Sarvahit Bima
Yojna' - for the benefit of marginalised
sections
of
the
society
-
Scheme
formulated by the State as a Welfare State
and the insurance premium is paid by the
State to the Insurance Company, who in
turn issue the policies - provisions of the
Limitation Act are applicable to the suits,
appeals
and
the
applications
as
enumerated and before the Courts only -
any policy decision which is against any
statute, or can be faulted on the ground of
arbitrariness and unfairness and if the
same is dehors the provisions of the acts
or legislation can be interfered with by the
Court. (Para - 21,22,30,32)

(B) Insurance Act, 1938 - Section 46 -
Application of the law in force in India to
policies issued in India - mandate -
statutory right as contained in Section 46
to sue for relief in respect of the policy in a
court - 'law of the land' - which is binding
on all insurance contracts by virtue of
Section 46 providing three years' of
limitation in the event of a suit being filed
has to be accepted as a reasonable period
within which a claim for insurance and a
claim against the wrongful rejection of the
insurance can be preferred. (Para 23,24,34)

Father of the petitioner died in an accident -
being a farmer having agricultural holdings was
entitled to the grant of compensation under the
Mukhyamantri Kisan Avam Sarvahit Bima -
Petitioner claims to have applied for grant of
compensation - District Magistrate rejected the
claim of the petitioner under the Mukhyamantri
Kisan Avam Sarvahit Bima on the ground that
the claim is time barred. (Para - 2,3)

Held: - The limitation prescribed under the
Scheme is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary
and is liable to be struck out as it is well settled
that even while testing the validity of an
administrative action, the same can be tested
on the touch stone of the Article 14 of the
Constitution
of
India.
A
''socio-beneficial'
Scheme has to be interpreted in a manner so as
to advance the purpose for which the Scheme is
formulated and not in a manner so as to defeat
the entire purpose of the Scheme. (Para - 35)

Writ Petition allowed . (E-7)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

12 All. Gautam Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
477
legal position that the procedure for
removal of an elected President of Nagar
Panchayat is to be in accord with the
provisions of Section 48 of the Act,1916.

18. Having regard to aforesaid, we are
not inclined to entertain the present writ
petition for the reliefs prayed for, and the
writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.

19. It would be open to the petitioner
to pursue the remedies as may be available
to him in accordance with the statutory
provisions in terms of the Act,1916.
----------
(2020)12ILR A477
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.11.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ - C No. 15983 of 2020

Gautam Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ajay Kumar Maurya, Sri Jawahar Lal Maurya

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Civil law - 'socio-beneficial scheme' -
'Mukhayamantri Kisan and Sarvahit Bima
Yojna' - for the benefit of marginalised
sections
of
the
society
-
Scheme
formulated by the State as a Welfare State
and the insurance premium is paid by the
State to the Insurance Company, who in
turn issue the policies - provisions of the
Limitation Act are applicable to the suits,
appeals
and
the
applications
as
enumerated and before the Courts only -
any policy decision which is against any
statute, or can be faulted on the ground of
arbitrariness and unfairness and if the
same is dehors the provisions of the acts
or legislation can be interfered with by the
Court. (Para - 21,22,30,32)

(B) Insurance Act, 1938 - Section 46 -
Application of the law in force in India to
policies issued in India - mandate -
statutory right as contained in Section 46
to sue for relief in respect of the policy in a
court - 'law of the land' - which is binding
on all insurance contracts by virtue of
Section 46 providing three years' of
limitation in the event of a suit being filed
has to be accepted as a reasonable period
within which a claim for insurance and a
claim against the wrongful rejection of the
insurance can be preferred. (Para 23,24,34)

Father of the petitioner died in an accident -
being a farmer having agricultural holdings was
entitled to the grant of compensation under the
Mukhyamantri Kisan Avam Sarvahit Bima -
Petitioner claims to have applied for grant of
compensation - District Magistrate rejected the
claim of the petitioner under the Mukhyamantri
Kisan Avam Sarvahit Bima on the ground that
the claim is time barred. (Para - 2,3)

Held: - The limitation prescribed under the
Scheme is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary
and is liable to be struck out as it is well settled
that even while testing the validity of an
administrative action, the same can be tested
on the touch stone of the Article 14 of the
Constitution
of
India.
A
''socio-beneficial'
Scheme has to be interpreted in a manner so as
to advance the purpose for which the Scheme is
formulated and not in a manner so as to defeat
the entire purpose of the Scheme. (Para - 35)

Writ Petition allowed . (E-7)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Brij Mohan Lal Vs U.O.I. & ors., (2012) 6 SCC
502

2. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Vs DG of Police, (2009) 6
SCC 611 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 227

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)
478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed
challenging the order dated Nil of 2020
(Annexure-9 to the petition), whereby the
District Magistrate, Jaunpur has rejected
the claim of the petitioner under the
Mukhyamantri Kisan Avam Sarvahit Bima
on the ground that the claim is time barred.

3. The facts, in brief, are that on
3.7.2018 the father of the petitioner died in
an accident and being a farmer having
agricultural holdings was entitled to the
grant
of
compensation
under
the
Mukhyamantri Kisan Avam Sarvahit Bima.
The petitioner claims to have applied for
grant of compensation on 20th October,
2018 before the Tehsil authorities, which
was forwarded to the respondent no. 3, the
Insurance Company, for the claim to be
processed. No decision was being taken for
processing the claim, as such, after
representing the matter, the petitioner
approached this Court by filing a writ
petition being Writ-C No. 558 of 2020
(Gautam Yadav vs. State of U.P. and 3
Others), which was disposed off vide order
dated 14.1.2020, directing the District
Magistrate, Jaunpur to hear the grievances
and take an appropriate decision after
summoning the records within a period of
two months. It is stated that the petitioner
appeared and apprised about his eligibility
for the claim, however, the same was
rejected vide order dated Nil, March, 2020
(Annexure-9) solely on the ground that the
petitioner did not prefer the claim within
the limitation prescribed in the Scheme.

4. A perusal of the order passed and
impugned in the present writ petition shows
that the learned counsel for the petitioner
had argued that the father of the petitioner
died on 03.07.2018, however, as the death
certificate was not granted to the petitioner,
the claim was filed as soon as the death
certificate was granted on 20th October,
2018, thus, there was no delay in filing the
claim.

5. The Insurance Company, on the
other hand, contended that the insurance
claim has been filed after one month of the
accident and, in terms of the Scheme, the
District Magistrate, Jaunpur is empowered
only to extend the limitation by a period of
one month and as Insurance Company had
received a claim on 16.1.2019, as such, the
petitioner's claim was barred by limitation
and accordingly was not processed.

6. The District Magistrate, Jaunpur
after hearing the parties held that in terms
of the Scheme, the accidents which took
place from 14th September, 2017 to 30th
September, 2018, the claim should be filed
latest by 13th October, 2018 and if the
same is delayed, the claim can be filed with
a delay condonation application up to 13th
November, 2018 before the Insurance
Company.
He
further
held
that
as
admittedly
the
claim
was
filed
on
20.10.2018 before the Tehsildar and not
before the Insurance Company, the same is
beyond the limitation prescribed and as the
District Magistrate cannot condone the
delay of more than one month, the claim is
liable to be rejected.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has raised two fold submissions. Firstly, he
argues that the impugned order is bad in
law for the reason that the claim petition
was filed within one month of obtaining the
death certificate and as there was a delay in
providing the death certificate, which is
required to be annexed along with the
12 All. Gautam Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
479
claim, the claim ought to have been
considered on its merits.

8. His second submission is that the
Insurance Schemes including the present
scheme
'Mukhyamantri
Kisan
Avam
Sarvahit Bima' is a beneficial Scheme and
the limitation of three months (and upto
one month of the expiry of period of
Insurance) as provided under the said
Scheme as well as the provision for
empowering the District Magistrate to
condone the delay only upto one month, is
wholly arbitrary, illegal and militates
against the whole Scheme.

9. He argues that in view of the
submissions made, the order deserves to be
set aside and directions be issued for grant
of compensation to the petitioner, as prayed
for.

10. Dealing with the first argument of
the petitioner that the impugned order
rejecting the Scheme as being beyond the
period prescribed. A perusal of the order
impugned
shows
that
the
District
Magistrate found the claim to be beyond
period of limitation from the expiry of date
of insurance term and also beyond the
condonable powers conferred upon the
District
Magistrate.
The
limitation
prescribed as under:

**n& ;fn ifjokj ds eqf[k;k@jksVh
vtZd@ukfeuh@dkuwuh okfjl 1⁄4tSlk ykxw gks1⁄2
}kjk chek nkok lacaf/kr chek dEiuh dks izLrqr
djus esa 03 ekg ls vf/kd 1⁄4fdUrq chek vof/k dh
lekfIr ds 01 ekg i'pkr rd1⁄2 foyEc gks tkrk
gS rks mDr ifjfLFkfr esa 01 ekg rd foyEc dks
{kek djus dk vf/kdkj ftykf/kdkjh dks gksxkA**

11. On a plain reading of the said
provision and the documents on record, it is
clear that the petitioner had filed the
application for grant of compensation on
20.10.2018 whereas the death had occurred
on 03.07.2018. The period of insurance
policy expired on 12.9.2018 as such claim
could be made by 11.10.2018 with a further
condonable limit upto 11.11.2018 as such it
was well within the limitation and the
condonable limit prescribed in the scheme,
by which time the delay in filing could be
condoned. The impugned order is clearly
wrong on that count and thus liable to be
set aside holding that the application for
compensation filed was well within the
prescribed condonable period of limitation
as provided in the Scheme.

12. Now coming to the second
question
agitated
that
the
limitation
prescribed in the Scheme is arbitrary and
unreasonable. It is relevant to mention the
following aspects which led to the framing
of the Scheme in question.

13. We are dealing with the said
arguments as a large number of petitions
are being filed which are similar in nature
and there are grey areas in view of the
conflict
between
the
Law
and
the
provisions of the scheme which require
clarification.

14. The State Government intending
to
extend
insurance
cover
to
the
marginalised farmers in the State floated etenders
calling
upon
the
Insurance
Companies to participate and bid for the
implementation of the 'Samajwadi Kisan
and Sarvahit Bima Yojna' in Uttar Pradesh
which was subsequently renamed as
'Mukhayamantri Kisan and Sarvahit Bima
Yojna' in Uttar Pradesh vide Government
Order
No.
511b(1)/ka-Ni-6-2017208(4)/2015 dated 20.6.2017. In terms of
the
said
tender,
various
insurance
companies participated and with the highest
480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bidder an Agreement was entered into in
between the Insurance Companies and the
State
of
Uttar
Pradesh
through
the
Governor. The relevant portion of one such
Agreement is as under:

"The name of the Scheme has been
changed to Mukhyamantri Kisan & Sarvhit
Bima Yojna vide G.O. GoUP511(1)b/Ka.Ni.-
6/2017-20B(4)/2015, dated 20 June, 2017. Vide
partially amendment G.O. GOUP424 b/Ka.Ni.-
6/2016-20B(4)/2015, dated 31 May, 2016.

All the conditions stated in this
agreements signed by the parties dated 14 Sep,
2016 as comprising of Request for Proposal
(RFP), Prebid Response sheet and the
Corrigendum Documents (as attached herewith)
and letter of undertaking regarding renewal of
insurance policy dated 6 Sep, 2017 shall form
part and parcel of this Agreement for next policy
period (i.e. from the midnight of 13 Sep, 2018 to
the midnight of 13 Sep, 2019)".

"2. The following documents
attached hereto shall be the integral part of
the Agreement:

"a. Request for proposal.

b. Agreement dated 14. Sep, 2005
with all attachments.

c. Corrigendum documents as
Amendment in the Scheme. (Annx-X)

d.
Letter
of
undertaking
regarding renewal of insurance policy by
the insurance company. (Annx-Z)

e. The payment Terms (Annx.-A)"

3. Detail Scheme : Mukhyamantri Kisan
& Sarvhit Bima Yojna as amended as below:"

15. In the document appended in this
Agreement, a copy of the Scheme was also
appended and was a part of the Agreement.
The relevant provision, in the said Scheme
with regard to limitation, was as under:

**1⁄421⁄2 ;fn ifjokj ds eqf[k;k@jksVh
vtZd@ukfeuh@dkuwuh okfjl 1⁄4tSlk ykxw gks1⁄2
}kjk chek vof/k dh lekfIr ds 01 ekg i'pkr~
rd chek nkok lacaf/kr chek dEiuh dks izLrqr
djus esa foyEc gks tkrk gS rks mDr ifjfLFkfr esa
01 ekg rd foyEc dks {kek djus dk vf/kdkj
ftykf/kdkjh dks gksxkA**

16. In other terms and conditions of
the Agreement (relevant for the purposes of
this case), the following was incorporated:

"10. The Insurance Company
shall perform the services shall perform the
services and carry out its obligation under
this Agreement with the diligence efficiency
and economy in accordance with generally
accepted
professional
standards
and
practices. The Insurance Company shall
abide by all the provision/Acts/Rules etc.
prevalent in the country. The Insurance
Company shall conform to the standards
laid down in the RFP in totality.

11. Applicable Law means the
laws and any other instrument having the
force of law in India as may be issued and
in force
from time
to time. This
Agreement
shall
be
interpreted
in
accordance with the laws of the Union of
India and the State of Uttar Pradesh.

12. If, after the date of issuance
of LOI, there is any change in the
Applicable Laws of India with respect to
taxes and duties, then the same shall be
borne by the Insurance Company.

13. Arbitration............................"

17. As the scheme (which contains
period of limitation), is also made part of
Agreement, the limitation is said to be
prescribed for raising a claim.

18. We are informed that from
04.03.2020, the Scheme has been further
amended. The Scheme is renamed as
'Mukhayamantri Kisan and Sarvahit Bima
Yojna and the limitation in terms of the
12 All. Gautam Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
481
Scheme as applicable w.e.f. 14.9.2019 is as
under:

"10- आवेदन पत्र प्रस्तुत करने की
अवजध-

कृर्क की दुघयटनावश मृत्यु अथवा
जदव्याांगता होने पर, कृर्क/जवजधक वाररस/वाररसोां
को आवेदन पत्र जनधायररत प्रमाण पत्रोां/प्रपत्रोां को
पूणय कराकर, दो प्रजतयोां में (मूल प्रजत एवां छाय
प्रजत) अजधकतम ड्ेढ माह (45 जदन) की अवजध
में सम्बक्तित तहसील कायायलय में िमा करना
होगा। अपररहायय पररक्तथथत में आवेदन पत्र प्रस्तुत
करने की अवजध को 01 माह तक बढाने का
अजधकार जिलाजधकारी में जनजहत होगा। जकसी
िी दशा में ढाई माह (75 जदन) के पश्चात
आवेदन पत्र पर जवचार नहीां जकया िायेगा।"

19. Thus, what is to be considered of
this Court, is whether the prescription of
limitation in the Scheme is 'unreasonable'
and 'arbitrary' and upto what extent this
court can interfere with the Scheme
especially with regard to limitation.

20. A perusal of the Scheme shows that
the Scheme was formulated with an intent of
granting benefits to the poor farmers and
marginalised sections of the society in the
contingency of the them suffering death or
permanent disablement on account of the
reasons so enumerated in the Scheme.

21. The Scheme was formulated by the
State as a Welfare State and the insurance
premium is paid by the State to the
Insurance Company, who in turn issue the
policies. Thus, it is clearly an insurance
contract wherein the policy is issued by the
Insurance Company and the premium is paid
by the State in discharging its obligation as a
welfare State. The Scheme is clearly a
'socio-beneficial scheme' for the benefit of
marginalised sections of the society.

22. Insurance by its very nature is a
contingent contract and the benefits of the
insurance
policy
depend
on
the
contingencies as indicated in the policy.
Insurance in India is governed under the
provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938
which authorizes and regulates the business
of insurance in India. Essentially, the
breach of terms of insurance policy is a
'tortuous liability' and but for any specific
statutory enactment, (like M.V. Act,
Employees Compensation Act, etc) gives a
cause of action for filing a suit, in the event
of breach of condition of policy. The
Schedule appended to the 'Limitation Act'
governs the period of limitation for filing a
suit on account of breach of an insurance
policy and Article 44 (a) of the said
Schedule provides for a period of three
years' limitation for filing a suit from the
date of the death of the deceased, or from
the date when the claim is partly or wholly
denied. It is well settled that the provisions
of the Limitation Act are applicable to the
suits, appeals and the applications as
enumerated and before the Courts only.

23. It is relevant to refer to the
provisions of Insurance Act which are
relevant for the purposes of adjudication of
the present case. Section 46 of the
Insurance Act, 1938 provides as under:

"46. Application of the law in
force in India to policies issued in India.--
The holder of a policy of insurance issued
by an insurer in respect of insurance
business transacted in [India] after the
commencement of this Act shall have the
right, notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in the policy or in any
Agreement relating thereto, to receive
payment in [India], of any sum secured
thereby and to sue for any relief in respect
of the policy in any court of competent
482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
jurisdiction in 1[India]; and if the suit is
brought in [India] any question of law
arising in connection with any such policy
shall be determined according to the law
in force in [India]:

[Provided that nothing in this
section shall apply to a policy of marine
insurance.]"

24. A plain reading of the mandate of
Section 46 makes it clear that the statutory
right as contained in Section 46 to sue for
relief in respect of the policy in a court and
the questions of law in connection with any
such policy are to be determined in
accordance with the law in force in India.
Thus, the term 'law in force' has been made
specifically applicable to all the policies
irrespective of the terms of the policy or
Agreement. The mandate of Section 46 is
also reflected in the Agreement signed in
between the Insurance Companies and the
State wherein Clauses 10, 11 and 12
(quoted above), it has been specifically
agreed that the Applicable Laws with
regard to the policies shall be the law as
prevalent in the country.

25. The Scheme as formulated and a
part of the Agreement in between State and
Insurance Company has essentially two
basic parts, first being the endeavour of the
State to provide for compensation to the
farmers in the event of happening of
particular incidence and thus clearly is a
beneficial provision for the benefit of
farmers in general, the second limb of the
Scheme is the 'machinery/procedural
provision' with regard to the manner of
claim
and
which
also
includes
the
limitation as contained in the Scheme.

26. The prescription of limitation in
Scheme of the nature which is under
consideration by this Court has to be
interpreted in a manner so as to achieve the
object for which the Scheme is made and
any prescription or provision/s which is/are
for contrary to the statutory provisions has
to be repelled more so in view of specific
mandate of Section 46 of the Insurance Act
as well as the specific Agreement in
between the Insurance Companies and the
State agreeing to the applicability of the
laws as prevalent in India.

27. The Court cannot also ignore the
social facts in the State of Uttar Pradesh,
wherein the post death rituals extend for a
reasonably long time and collection of
documents required to be filed with claim
(detailed in the scheme) take a long time
and to expect the family of the bereaved,
that too illiterate to file a claim within a
period of 45 days (maximum upto 75 days)
as prescribed under the new Scheme and
three months in the erstwhile schemes
prima facie is wholly arbitrary and has the
potential of frustrating the entire purpose of
the Scheme which is to benefit the poor
farmers.

28. Thus what is to be considered by this
Court is whether the "machinery/procedural
provision" providing the limitation for preferring
the claim is 'arbitrary' and 'unreasonable' moreso
in view of the specific provisions of laws in force
in India and whether this Court can interfere in the
policy matters of the State.

29. The Supreme Court in the case of
Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of India and
others,
(2012)
6
SCC
502
while
considering the policy of Union of India
known as 'FTCC Scheme" laid down the
following with regard to the scope of
interference in policy matters by the Court:

"100. Certain tests, whether this
Court should or not interfere in the policy
12 All. Gautam Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
483
decisions of the State, as stated in other
judgments, can be summed up as:

(I) If the policy fails to satisfy the
test of reasonableness, it would be
unconstitutional.

(II) The change in policy must be
made fairly and should not give the
impression that it was so done arbitrarily
on any ulterior intention.

(III) The policy can be faulted on
grounds of mala fides, unreasonableness,
arbitrariness or unfairness, etc.

(IV) If the policy is found to be
against any statute or the Constitution or
runs counter to the philosophy behind these
provisions.

(V) It is dehors the provisions of
the Act or legislations.

(VI) If the delegate has acted
beyond its power of delegation.

101. Cases of this nature can be
classified into two main classes: one class
being the matters relating to general policy
decisions of the State and the second
relating to fiscal policies of the State. In the
former class of cases, the courts have
expanded the scope of judicial review when
the actions are arbitrary, mala fide or
contrary to the law of the land; while in the
latter class of cases, the scope of such
judicial
review
is
far
narrower.
Nevertheless,
unreasonableness,
arbitrariness, unfair actions or policies
contrary to the letter, intent and philosophy
of law and policies expanding beyond the
permissible limits of delegated power will
be instances where the courts will step in to
interfere with government policy.

102. In Mohd. Abdul Kadir v.
DG of Police [(2009) 6 SCC 611 : (2009) 2
SCC (L&S) 227] this Court, while
declining regularisation of the persons
employed in a particular project under a
temporary Scheme, though the same had
been continued for a long time, commented
upon the scope of interference in the policy
relating to the Prevention of Infiltration of
Foreigners Additional Scheme, 1987 and
considered it appropriate to draw the
attention of the authorities to the issues
involved in the case by directing as under:
(SCC p. 618, para 22).

"22. We are conscious of the fact
that the issue is a matter of policy having
financial and other implications. But where
an issue involving public interest has not
engaged the attention of those concerned
with policy, or where the failure to take
prompt decision on a pending issue is likely
to be detrimental to public interest, courts
will be failing in their duty if they do not
draw attention of the authorities concerned
to the issue involved in appropriate cases.
While courts cannot be and should not be
makers of policy, they can certainly be
catalysts, when there is a need for a policy
or a change in policy."

103. The correct approach in
relation to the scope of judicial review of
policy decisions of the State can hardly be
stated in absolute terms. It will always
depend upon the facts and circumstances of
a given case. Furthermore, the court would
have
to
examine
any
elements
of
arbitrariness, unreasonableness and other
constitutional facets in the policy decision
of the State before it can step in to interfere
and pass effective orders in such cases.

104. A challenge to the formation
of a State policy or its subsequent
alterations may be raised on very limited
grounds. Again, the scope of judicial
review in such matters is a very limited
one. One of the most important aspects in
adjudicating such a matter is that the State
policy should not be opposed to basic rule
of law or the statutory law in force. This is
what has been termed by the courts as the
philosophy of law, which must be adhered
to by valid policy decisions."
484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

30. Thus, in view of the law laid
down, it is clear that any policy decision
which is against any statute, or can be
faulted on the ground of arbitrariness and
unfairness and if the same is dehors the
provisions of the acts or legislation can be
interfered with by the Court.

31. In the light of the above dictum of
Supreme Court, we have to see whether
such a short period of limitation militates
against the object of the Scheme and can be
interfered with on it being unreasonable
and opposed to basic rule of law and
whether the period of limitation prescribed
in the Scheme is clearly violative of 'law of
the land' and thus is contrary to the
provisions of 46 of the Insurance Act as
well as contrary to the own Agreement of
the State with the Insurance Companies.

32. It is no doubt true that the Limitation
Act is not applicable in proceedings other than
the suits and appeals and the proceedings before
the Court, however, the Schedule attached to
the Limitation Act clearly lays down the period
within which a suit can be instituted in the event
of non-payment of compensation.

33. Article 44-(a) & (b) of the
Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 is
quoted as under:

"(a)
On
a
policy
of
insurance
when
the
sum insured
is
payable
after
proof
of the death
has
been
given to or
received by
Three
years
The date of the
death
of
the
deceased,
or
where the claim
on the policy is
denied,
either
partly
or
wholly, the date
of such denial.
the insurers;
(b)
On
a
policy
of
insurance
when
the
sum insured
is
payable
after
proof
of the loss
has
been
given to or
received by
the
insurers;"
Three
years
The date of the
occurrence
causing the loss,
or
where
the
claim
on
the
policy is denied
either partly or
wholly, the date
of such denial.

34. Thus, the 'law of the land' which is
binding on all insurance contracts by virtue of
Section 46 providing three years' of limitation in
the event of a suit being filed has to be accepted as
a reasonable period within which a claim for
insurance and a claim against the wrongful
rejection of the insurance can be preferred. We
take a ''que' from the schedule appended to the
Limitation Act to hold that the limitation of three
years from the date of the death or the date of
rejection of the claim, partly or wholly, would be a
reasonable time for filing a claim under the
Mukhyamantri Kisan Avam Sarvahit Bima
Scheme and the similar schemes which were in
force prior thereto on behalf of beneficiaries of the
Scheme. We hold so also keeping in mind that the
procedure for raising a claim in the manner as
provided in the Scheme by implication may bar
remedy of filing suit by virtue of Section 9 of Civil
Procedure Code.

35. We have no hesitation in holding
that the limitation prescribed under the
Scheme
is
wholly
unreasonable
and
arbitrary and is liable to be struck out as it
is well settled that even while testing the
validity of an administrative action, the
same can be tested on the touch stone of the
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A
12 All. Ramesh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
485
''socio-beneficial'
Scheme
has
to
be
interpreted in a manner so as to advance the
purpose
for
which
the
Scheme
is
formulated and not in a manner so as to
defeat the entire purpose of the Scheme.

36. Thus, we set aside the order dated
Nil March, 2020 (Annexure-9), whereby
the claim of the petitioner has been rejected
on the ground of limitation on both grounds
as raised and discussed in this Judgment.

37. We further direct that in place of
Limitation Prescribed under the Scheme, it
should be read that the claims made within three
years of the date of the death or within three
years from the date of the rejection, either wholly
or partly by the Insurance Company, to be a
reasonable period for filing a claim under the
'Mukhyamantri Kisan Avam Sarvahit Bima
Scheme' and the similar schemes which were in
force prior thereto on behalf of beneficiaries of
the Scheme.

38. As innumerable cases are filed
seeking compensation under the schemes
across the State, we direct that all the
claims filed within a period of three years
from the date of the death or within a
period of three years from the date of
rejection of claim, either partly or wholly
by the Insurance Company, should be
treated to be filed within limitation and
should be processed on their merits .

39. As we have held that the limitation
provided under the said Scheme is unreasonable
and arbitrary and have substituted the said
period by a period of three years, as recorded
above, we direct the Registrar General of this
Court to transmit a copy of this order to The
Chief Secretary State of Uttar Pradesh and
Director Institutional Finance,State of Uttar
Pradesh ,for its communication to all the
District Magistrates in the State and the District
Magistrates in turn are directed to entertain and
process the claims filed under the Scheme
within limitation as prescribed above by this
Court treating them to be within limitation and
the same should be processed on their merits.

40. We have directed and provided for
the limitation of three years, till the time the
State Government takes an appropriate decision
and amends limitation clauses of the Scheme to
make them more reasonable taking into account
the socio economic condition of the society as
well the laws of India.

41. The writ petition is allowed in
terms of the said order.

42. The District Magistrate, Jaunpur
shall now process the claim of the
petitioner in accordance with law on its
merits treating the same to be within
limitation and the same shall be processed
expeditiously preferably within a period of
three months from the date of filing of the
copy of this order.

43. Copy of this judgment downloaded
from the official website of this Court shall be
treated/accepted as certified copy of this
judgment.
----------
(2020)12ILR A485
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.10.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NAHEED ARA MOONIS, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

Writ - C No. 17015 of 2020

Ramesh Chandra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents