# Mangal Batra v. Mohd. Rafeeq Visayati & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 590
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-10
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 22096 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mangal-batra-v-mohd-rafeeq-visayati-ors-48920
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

the amending Act was made effective only
from 1st April, 2022 and even though the
claim petition was filed on 12th April, 2022
but amendment incorporating period of
limitation under the Motor Vehicles Act
being
only
prospective
in
nature,
application was maintainable. In support of
his argument, he has placed reliance upon
the judgment of Kerala High Court in the
case of Sathi and others v. Dileep I.S. and
others decided on 1st June, 2022 in OP
(MAC) No.- 51 of 2022, wherein this legal
aspect of the matter has been dealt with
extensively and it has been held that
amended provision of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 was having only prospective effect
from 1st April, 2022 in terms of the
accident
occurring
on
that
day
or
subsequently; and

(B). Since the accident had taken place
on 12th October, 2020 when the whole
State was badly hit by the Covid-19,
therefore, a general order condoning the
delay for instituting judicial proceedings or
for that matter quasi judicial proceedings,
the Supreme Court took a pragmatic view
that period during which the States and the
nation were hit by the pandemic Covid-19,
such period should be exempted from the
592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
period of limitation, or in other words the
period of limitation would stand extended
for such a period. In this connection,
petitioner has relied upon the judgment of
Supreme Court dated 10th January, 2022
passed in Misc. Application No. 21 of 2022
in a Suo Moto writ petition C No.- 3 of

## Text

590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
antecedents and keeping in view the
objective criteria and the relevant service
rules into consideration, while taking
appropriate
decision
regarding
continuance/suitability of the employee into
service. What being noticed by this Court is
that mere suppression of material/false
information in a given case does not mean
that
the
employer
can
arbitrarily
discharge/terminate the employee from
service.

........

18. The criminal case indeed was of
trivial nature and the nature of post and
nature of duties to be discharged by the
recruit has never been looked into by the
competent authority while examining the
overall suitability of the incumbent keeping
in view Rule 52 of the Rules 1987 to
become a member of the force. Taking into
consideration the exposition expressed by
this Court in Avtar Singh (supra), in our
considered view the order of discharge
passed by the competent authority dated
24th April, 2015 is not sustainable and in
sequel thereto the judgment passed by the
Division Bench of High Court of Delhi does
not hold good and deserves to be set
aside."

 (Emphasis supplied)

36. Keeping in mind the aforesaid
principles, in the case in hand, when there
is no whisper of the fact in the impugned
order as well as in the counter affidavit
filed by the learned counsel for the
respondents as to whether the petitioner has
been charge sheeted, convicted or acquitted
and the nature and seriousness of the
offence, the case of the petitioner stands on
a better and different footings from that of
Dharmendra Kumar (supra) case, hence
for the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the impugned
judgment dated 21.01.2019 is liable to be
reviewed and recalled. The writ petition is
to be restored to its original number.

37.

Accordingly,
this
review
application is allowed. The judgment dated
21.01.2019 is recalled and, therefore, this
Court finds that the orders impugned dated
29.07.2015 and 11.05.2017 passed by
respondent no.4 cannot be legally sustained
and are hereby quashed. Matter is remitted
back to respondent no.4 for decision afresh
in light of the law laid down by the Apex
Court in the cases of Avtar Singh and
Pawan Kumar (Supras). While deciding
the matter afresh, respondent no.4 shall
pass a reasoned and speaking order, in
accordance with law,
after
affording
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,
preferably within a period of three months
from the date a certified copy of this order
is filed before him, if there is no other legal
impediment.

38. The present writ petition, which is
restored to its original number, is also
allowed subject to the observations made
above.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 590
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ-C No. 22096 of 2022

Mangal Batra ...Petitioner
Versus
Mohd. Rafeeq Visayati & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manish Tandon

Counsel for the Respondents:
8 All. Mangal Batra Vs. Mohd. Rafeeq Visayati & Ors.
591
Sri Arvind Kumar, Sri Rahul Sahai

A. Civil Law -Constitution of India, 1950Article 226 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Section 166(3)-claim petition-Return of
claim petition holding its filing beyond
prescribed
period
of
limitation
(six
months) from, date of accident, not
maintainable in view of section 166(3) of
the Act-Amending provisions in question
brought on statute vide Act No. 32 of 2019
were notified to be made operative in
Official Gazette by Central Government on
25th February, 2022 to be effectively
operative w.e.f. 1st April, 2022-Until such
notification with respect to section 166
not
brought
into
force-Since
the
Amending Act of 2019 did not make it
retrospective
from
the
date
of
its
notification and did not prescribed any
amendment/alteration
in
repeal
and
saving clause of the Act so as to make it
applicable in respect of the accident that
had taken place prior to the date of
notification-Petitioner
directed
to
represent the petition again before the
Tribunal.(Para 1 to 20)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Sathi & ors. Vs Dileep I.S & ors. OP(MAC) No.
51 of 2022

2. St. of Punj. & ors. Vs Bhajan Kaur & ors. WP
No. 3 of 2022

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Manish Tandon, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Sahai,
learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3
& 5.

2. By means of this writ petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioner has challenged the order dated
18th April, 2022 of the Motor Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
whereby
the
claim
petition of the petitioner has been returned
on the ground that it came to be filed
beyond the prescribed period of limitation
i.e. six months from the date of accident
and hence as per Section 166 (3) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended vide
Act No.- 32 of 2019 and made effective
from 1st April, 2022, the claim petition was
held not maintainable.

3. The argument advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner is two fold:

(A). The Tribunal is not justified in
returning the claim petition on the ground
of delay in filing the claim petition because
the amending Act was made effective only
from 1st April, 2022 and even though the
claim petition was filed on 12th April, 2022
but amendment incorporating period of
limitation under the Motor Vehicles Act
being
only
prospective
in
nature,
application was maintainable. In support of
his argument, he has placed reliance upon
the judgment of Kerala High Court in the
case of Sathi and others v. Dileep I.S. and
others decided on 1st June, 2022 in OP
(MAC) No.- 51 of 2022, wherein this legal
aspect of the matter has been dealt with
extensively and it has been held that
amended provision of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 was having only prospective effect
from 1st April, 2022 in terms of the
accident
occurring
on
that
day
or
subsequently; and

(B). Since the accident had taken place
on 12th October, 2020 when the whole
State was badly hit by the Covid-19,
therefore, a general order condoning the
delay for instituting judicial proceedings or
for that matter quasi judicial proceedings,
the Supreme Court took a pragmatic view
that period during which the States and the
nation were hit by the pandemic Covid-19,
such period should be exempted from the
592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
period of limitation, or in other words the
period of limitation would stand extended
for such a period. In this connection,
petitioner has relied upon the judgment of
Supreme Court dated 10th January, 2022
passed in Misc. Application No. 21 of 2022
in a Suo Moto writ petition C No.- 3 of
2022.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the
Insurer has sought to justify the order
impugned for the reasons assigned therein.

5. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and their arguments raised
across the bar, I find that Accident Claims
Tribunal has rejected the claim of petitioner
solely on the ground that the accident had
taken place on 12th October, 2020 and
when the petition was presented before the
Tribunal the amendment had already
intervened which prescribed for six month
limitation for moving application for claim
under the Motor Vehicles Act. Applying the
amended provision, the Tribunal has held
that claim petition was not maintainable
and accordingly returned the claim petition
to the claimant-applicant.

6. The judgment of the Kerala High
Court, as is claimed to be still holding the
field, has dealt with the provisions and held
that the amended provisions would have
prospective effect only. Vide paragraph 10
of the judgment, it has been held thus:

"10. Since while introducing the Act of
2019 effective from 1.4.2022, Legislature
did not cause any amendment in the
repealing and savings clause specifying its
applicability in respect of the accidents
occurred prior to the introduction of the
amendment, in view of the provisions of
Section 6 and the observations of the
Supreme Court in the judgment in State of
Punjab and others v. Bhajan Kaur and
others (supra), I am of the view that the
applicability of the Act i.e., introduction of
the old provisions of sub-Section (3) of
Section 166, would have a prospective
effect and the limitation period of six
months would apply after introduction of
the amendment i.e., post 1st April, 2022. In
other words, in any accident occurred after
1.4.2022, provisions of the amendment
caused in the Act prescribing the limitation
to entertain a claim petition, the parties
would be governed by the same but not in
respect of the persons whom a right had
already accrued and was available if the
amendment had not been caused."

7. Having gone through the judgment
of Kerala High Court and amended
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, I find
that though the Act came to be amended in
the year 2019 vide Act No.- 32 of 2019 but
was made effective only from 1st April,
2022 and the Act does not make operation
of the amended provision retrospective.

8. However, in order to appreciate the
amendment made it would be appropriate
to reproduce Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 as it existed on the
Statute book prior to 1st April, 2019:

"166. Application for compensation.-
(1) An application for compensation
arising out of an accident of the nature
specified in sub-section (1) of section 165
may be made -

(a) by the person who has sustained
the injury; or

(b) by the owner of the property; or

(c) where death has resulted from the
accident, by all or any of the legal
representatives of the deceased; or

(d) by any agent duly authorized by
the person injured or all or any of the legal
8 All. Mangal Batra Vs. Mohd. Rafeeq Visayati & Ors.
593
representatives of the deceased, as the case
may be:

Provided that where all the legal
representatives of the deceased have not
joined
in
any
such
application
for
compensation, the application shall be made
on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal
representatives of the deceased and the legal
representatives who have not so joined, shall
be
impleaded
as
respondents
to
the
application.

(2) Every application under sub-section
(1) shall be made, at the option of the
claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal
having jurisdiction over the area in which the
accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal
within the local limits of whose jurisdiction
the claimant resides or carries on business or
within the local limits of whose jurisdiction
the defendant resides, and shall be in such
form and contain such particulars as may be
prescribed:

Provided that where no claim for
compensation under section 140 is made in
such application, the application shall
contain a separate statement to that effect
immediately before the signature of the
applicant.

(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any
report of accidents forwarded to it under subsection (6) of section 158 as an application
for compensation under this Act."

9. From the bare reading of the
aforesaid provisions it is clear that there was
no such limitation prescribed for, prior to
2019 as sub-Section (3) of Section 166 that
prescribed period for limitation between 6 to
12 months earlier had been subsequently
repealed.

10. Now I reproduce Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as it stood amended
vide Amending Act No.- 32 of 2019:

"166. Application for compensation.-
(1) An application for compensation
arising out of an accident of the nature
specified in sub-section (1) of section 165
may be made -

(a) by the person who has sustained
the injury; or

(b) by the owner of the property; or

(c) where death has resulted from the
accident, by all or any of the legal
representatives of the deceased; or

(d) by any agent duly authorized by
the person injured or all or any of the legal
representatives of the deceased, as the case
may be:

Provided that where all the legal
representatives of the deceased have not
joined
in
any
such
application
for
compensation, the application shall be
made on behalf of or for the benefit of all
the legal representatives of the deceased
and the legal representatives who have not
so
joined,
shall
be
impleaded
as
respondents to the application.

Provided further that where a person
accepts compensation under section 164 in
accordance with the procedure provided
under section 149, his claims petition
before the Claims Tribunal shall lapse.

(2) Every application under subsection (1) shall be made, at the option of
the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal
having jurisdiction over the area in which
the accident occurred or to the Claims
Tribunal within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries
on business or within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction the defendant resides,
and shall be in such form and contain such
particulars as may be prescribed:

Provided that where no claim for
compensation under section 140 is made in
such application, the application shall
contain a separate statement to that effect
594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
immediately before the signature of the
applicant.

(3) No application for compensation
shall be entertained unless it is made
within six months of the occurrence of the
accident.

(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat
any report of accidents forwarded to it
under section 159 as an application for
compensation under this Act.

(5) Notwithstanding anything in this
Act or any other law for the time being in
force, the right of a person to claim
compensation for injury in an accident
shall, upon the death of the person injured,
survive
to
his
legal
representatives,
irrespective of whether the cause of death is
relatable to or had any nexus with the
injury or not."

(Emphasis added)

11. Upon the bare reading of the
aforesaid provisions, I find that second
proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 166
has been added and further sub-Section (3)
and (5) have been added. Sub-Section (3)
which is newly added section provides
limitation of a period of six months for
moving a claim petition of the occurrence
of the accident.

12. Now what is material and
substantially important is that limitation
would run from the date of occurrence of
the accident.

13. Now it is necessary to examine
the amending Act itself in order to decipher
its mode of implementation. Short title and
commencement of the amending Act No.-
32 of 2019 vide Section 1 and (2) of
Chapter 1 of the said Act is relevant here
and so is reproduced as under:-

"1. Short title and commencement - (1)
This Act may be called the Motor Vehicles
(Amendment) Act, 2019.

(2) It shall come into force on such
date as the Central Government may, by
notification
in
the
Official
Gazette,
appoint and different dates may be
appointed for different provisions of this
Act and any reference in any such
provision to the commencement of this Act
shall be construed as a reference to the
coming into force of that provision."

(Emphasis added)

14. A close scrutiny of aforesaid
provisions makes it evident beyond any
doubt that the amending Act, 2019 shall
come into force only from the date it is
notified by the Central Government in the
official Gazette and there may be different
dates for different provisions to be brought
into force.

15. Amending provisions in question
brought on Statute vide Act No.- 32 of
2019, were notified to be made operative in
the
official
Gazette
by
the
Central
Government on 25th February, 2022 to be
effectively operative w.e.f. 1st April, 2022.
It is clear that until such notification as
noticed above, the amending provisions of
the Act No. 32 of 2019 with respect of
Section 166, were not brought into force
and since the amending Act of 2019 did not
make it retrospective from the date of its
notification and did not prescribed any
amendment/ alteration in repeal and saving
clause of the Act so as to make it applicable
in respect of the accident that had taken
place prior to the date of notification, I find
the view taken by the Kerala High Court to
be justified and, therefore, do not find any
reason to defer from the same.
8 All. Triyugi Nath Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
595

16. As far as the other ground is
concerned regarding condoning the delay
during which limitation of six months'
period is to be exempted on the ground of
the
impact
of
pandemic
Covid-19
throughout the Nation in general and in
State of Uttar Pradesh in particular, I find
substance in the argument as well.
However, since I am not able to uphold the
order of the Tribunal on the very first
ground alone, I need not go in detail into
the second argument.

17. In view of the above, the order
dated 18th April, 2022 passed by the Motor
Accidents Claim Tribunal is hereby set
aside.

18. The petitioner is directed to
represent the petition again before the
Tribunal within a period of three weeks
from today and in the event if the same is
presented within the period of three weeks,
it shall be considered as such and the same
shall be decided within a further period of
three months as per procedure prescribed
for.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has apprised the Court that Claims Tribunal
in the State are refusing those claim
petitions that have been preferred beyond
the period of six months even in respect of
claims of accident that occurred prior to 1st
April, 2022. Learned Court for the
Insurance Company could not dispute the
above statement made at the bar.

20. Accordingly, I direct the Registrar
General/ Compliance to send a copy of this
order to every Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal in the State immediately.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 595
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Criminal Appeal Defective No. 10 of 2022
(U/S 372 Cr.P. C.)

Triyugi Nath Tiwari ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Yogesh Dutta Mishra, Sri Manjulesh
Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate, Sri Prakash Dwivedi

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302 & 34-Appeal against acquittalafter
delay
of
21
years-challenging
the
judgment passed much prior to the amendment
in 2009-not maintainable.

Appeal dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Prithvi Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors, Criminal
Appeal no. 329/2012

2. Mallikarjun Kodagali (dead) represented
through Legal representatives Vs St. of Kar. &
ors.

3. Hitendra Vishnu Thakur & ors. Vs St. of Mah.
& ors. (1994) 4 SCC 602

4. Ramesh Kumar Soni Vs St. of M.P., (2013) 14
SCC 696

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.
&
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

Re: Order on Criminal Appeal