# Manish v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2008) 1 ILRA 275
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-01-16
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1051 of 2008
- **Bench:** Bharati Sapru
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manish-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-41032
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Motor Vehicle Act 1988-Section 170Rejection
of
application-Insurance
company
allegation
of
conspiracy
between vehicle owner and claimantInsurance company allowed the tribunal
to pass final award-can not be allowed to

## Text

1 All] Manish V. State of U.P. and another
275

3. That is what brings the applicant
here under section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. Heard Sri Raj Kumar, Advocate
for the applicant and Sri Sri Mohammad
Israil
Siddiqui,
Addl
Government
Advocate for the State.

5. The order of Judge is violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as
held in the case of Moti Ram and others
versus State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR
1978 S.C. 1594), where the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that demand of local
sureties is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.

6.

Even
if,
the
aforesaid
pronouncement of the Supreme Court was
not within the knowledge of the learned
Judge and was not brought to his notice,
the order is manifestly callous and cruel.
How will an accused, who knows no one
in a district, where he is being prosecuted
and belongs to another district, would
bring local sureties. The amount of bail
bond also seems to be on higher side. This
order for demanding local sureties for an
amount of Rs.35,000/- each is set aside.
The learned Judge will rectify the order
accordingly.

7. With these observations, the
application is disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.01.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BHARATI SAPRU, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1051 of 2008

Smt. Poonam Yadav

...Petitioner
Versus
Director Health Service Department and
others

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jawahar Yadav
Sri B.R. Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C., Addl. Solicitor General of India

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Advertisment-application
be
send
through
Regd.
Post-petitioner
with
intention to ensure receiving within 24
hours-send
through speed post-both
services rendered by the India post and
Telegraph Department-authorities can
not refuse such application-send through
speed post.

Held: Para 6

In view of the above, I am of the opinion
that both Speed post or registered post
are services rendered by Indian Post and
Telegraph Department which ensures
strict delivery of post and mere making
clause
in
the
advertisement
that
application
will
be
sent
through
registered post, the respondent cannot
refuse the application of the petitioner
on the pretext that it had not been sent
by the registered post but had been sent
by the Speed Post which is equally
efficacious post.
276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
(Delivered by Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned standing
counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has applied for the
post of upcharika in the department of
respondent no. 2. The last date for
submission
of
the
application
was
10.12.2007. According to the terms of the
advertisement, the petitioner was to send
the application by registered post.

3. As the petitioner under some
apprehension that the application will not
reach by registered post within the time,
he sent it by speed post vide receipt dated
6.12.2007. In fact the petitioner did not
comply
with
the
terms
of
the
advertisement.

4. It is well aware that Speed Post
(EMS) service is value added post
services enunciated by the Indian Post and
Telegraph Department, for which sender
has to pay charges equivalent to the
registered
letter/parcel
together
with
speed
charges
depending
upon
the
distance of the place, where the post is
being dispatched.

5. In the instant case, the petitioner
has sent the application by speed post on
6.12.2007 through an agency authorized
by the Indian Post and Telegraph
Department which assured that the letter
would be delivered within 24 hours.

6. In view of the above, I am of the
opinion that both Speed post or registered
post are services rendered by Indian Post
and Telegraph Department which ensures
strict delivery of post and mere making
clause
in
the
advertisement
that
application will be sent through registered
post, the respondent cannot refuse the
application of the petitioner on the pretext
that it had not been sent by the registered
post but had been sent by the Speed Post
which is equally efficacious post.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has stated that since the interview for the
job is going on, she may also be
considered.

8. In view of the facts and
circumstances stated in the case and if the
interview is going on, the petitioner's
application too may be considered by the
respondents.

9. The writ petition is disposed of as
above.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.02.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 3127 of 2007

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

...Appellant
Versus
Puspa Devi and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Anand Kumar Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Dinesh Kumar

Motor Vehicle Act 1988-Section 170Rejection
of
application-Insurance
company
allegation
of
conspiracy
between vehicle owner and claimantInsurance company allowed the tribunal
to pass final award-can not be allowed to