# Neeraj Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 1 ILRA 423
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-04-03
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 1138 of 2015
- **Bench:** Satyendra Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/neeraj-kumar-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43179
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988-Section 173Appeal by Insurance Company-award
fixing liability upon appellant-admittedly
accident took place on 03.09.97-license
of driving renewed only on 08.10.1997stood expired on 09.09.96-more than
one year-held-benefit of Section 15 of
Act-not available-appellant not liable to
pay-if any amount paid in compliance of
award-liberty
to
realize
from
the
claimants-appeal allowed.
Held: Para-11 & 17

## Text

1 All] Neeraj Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
423
order that matter relating to application u/s
156(3) Cr.P.C. may be a matter relating to
exclusive dispute of civil nature. Therefore
no impropriety or irregularity appears to
have been committed by the Court below by
not ordering the investigation by the police
and directing the case to be registered as
complaint case. Therefore impugned order
should not be interfered with in revision.
Revision, accordingly, is dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SATYENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
Misc. Single No. 1138 of 2015
Neeraj Kumar Mishra
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sushil Kumar, Akshat Srivastava
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Yogendra Nath Yadav
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-Locus
standie-petitioner being member of Gaon
Sabha-challenging order by which notice
under
Rule
49-A-withdrawn-against
private
respondent-unless
resolution
passed by Gaon Sabha-empowering to file
writ petition-individual capacity-petition -
held-not maintainable.
Held: Para-6
Be that as it may, the question before this
Court is as to whether the petitioner, in
individual capacity, being a member of the
Gram Panchayat can challenge the order
passed by the Collector. There is no
resolution passed by the Gaon Sabha,
authorizing the petitioner to challenge the
order passed by the Collector.
Case Law discussed:
1982 ALJ 76
(Delivered by Hon'ble Satyendra Singh
Chauhan, J.)
1.
Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Standing Counsel as
well as learned counsel for the Gaon
Sabha.
2. The order in this case was
reserved on 17.3.2015. Learned counsel
for the petitioner wanted to place certain
case laws for perusal of the Court, but no
case law has been filed by the counsel for
the petitioner, which may lend support to
the argument advanced on behalf of the
petitioner.
3. The petitioner, who happens to be a
member of the Gaon Sabha, has come
forward to challenge the order dated
30.9.1993 passed by the Tehsildar (Nyayik),
the order dated 16.7.2010 passed by the
Tehsildar Sadar and the order dated
03.9.2014 passed by the Collector, Raebareli
as contained in Annexure Nos.1, 2 and 3
respectively to the writ petition..
4.
The earlier proceedings were
initiated against the petitioner on the report
submitted by the Lekhpal in 1983 under Rule
115(C) of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules. The
Nayab Tehsildar submitted a report on
24.3.1990 and after considering that report,
notice issued under Rule 49-A of the U.P.
Z.A. And L.R. Rules was taken back.
5. The present report, which has
been filed against the petitioner, has been
filed at the instance of village rivalry and
that the private respondent has established
in the earlier round of litigation that patta
was executed in his favour and he is in
possession since long.
424
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6. Be that as it may, the question
before this Court is as to whether the
petitioner, in individual capacity, being a
member of the Gram Panchayat can
challenge the order passed by the
Collector. There is no resolution passed
by the Gaon Sabha, authorizing the
petitioner to challenge the order passed by
the Collector.
7. The law contemplates that if
somebody wants to challenge the action
of the revenue authorities on behalf of the
Gaon Sabha, then there has to be a
resolution on behalf of the Gaon Sabha to
challenge the same.
8. In the case of Sita Ram vs.
Deputy Director of Consolidation and
others 1982 ALJ 76, the Court in Para-22,
held as under:
"22. Thus, in view of the above I am
of the opinion that the objection filed by
the opposite party No.3 Sheo Prasad
cannot be treated to be a valid objection
on behalf of the Gaon Sabha under
Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, on the ground that he was
himself an interested person under
Section 9A(2) of the Act, as admittedly the
Land Management Committee of the
Gaon
Sabha
had
not
passed
any
resolution
taking
decision
to
file
objection, appeal
and
revision nor
opposite party no.3 was authorised to file
those on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. It is
also not disputed that the action of the
opposite party no.3, in filing objections,
appeal, and revision on behalf of the
Gaon Sabha, was not ratified by the Land
Management Committee in its meetings.
Thus, the objections, appeal and revision
filed by opposite party no.3 Sheo Prasad
on behalf of the Gaon Sabha were wholly
incompetent and opposite party nos.1 and
2 acted illegally and without jurisdiction
in passing the impugned orders."
9. I, therefore, find that the writ
petition on behalf of the petitioner in
individual capacity is not maintainable. It
is accordingly dismissed.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRATYUSH KUMAR, J.
First Appeal From Order No. 1240 of 2000
The
Oriental
Insurance
Co.
Ltd.
Allahabad
 ...Appellant
Versus
Manoj Kumar & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri S.C. Srivastava
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Siddharth Srivastava, Sri S.D. Ojha
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988-Section 173Appeal by Insurance Company-award
fixing liability upon appellant-admittedly
accident took place on 03.09.97-license
of driving renewed only on 08.10.1997stood expired on 09.09.96-more than
one year-held-benefit of Section 15 of
Act-not available-appellant not liable to
pay-if any amount paid in compliance of
award-liberty
to
realize
from
the
claimants-appeal allowed.
Held: Para-11 & 17
11.

The
accident,
in
this
case,
admittedly took place on 03.09.1997.
Although, there is nothing on record to
indicate as to when the renewal was
applied, but this much is clear that the
licence was renewed after more than a
year from its expiry and, thus, on the