# Om Prakash v. State of U.P. & Ors. 390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 389
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-29
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 9000 of 2022
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/om-prakash-v-state-of-u-p-ors-390-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-48536
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Disaster Management -
Grant of compensation - The Disaster
Management Act, 2005 - provide for
effective management of disasters and
for matters connected therewith or
incidental
thereto
-
Notification
-
policy decision/clarification - providing
for the modalities with respect to
funds for expenditure to be incurred
from State Disaster Response Fund
(SDRF). (Para - 10,11)

Petitioner being father of deceased
-
entitled to Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation -
on account of death of his daughter due to
snake bite - Claim of petitioner kept
pending for last several years - ground -
viscera report has not been received -
viscera report was returned by FSL Mumbai
- ground - viscera from outside the State
are not being tested there - same sent back
to the concerned police station - same is
still pending. (Para - 4,8 )

HELD:-Petitioner
shall
prefer
a
representation before the respondent no.2,
District Magistrate within a period of one
month , who shall decide the claim of the
petitioner within a further period of one
month for grant of compensation/ex-gratia
payment to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-
without insisting for the requirement of
viscera
report
in
the
light
of
the
observation.(Para - 21)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-7)

## Text

5 All. Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
389
Constitution. The High Court having regard
to the facts of the case, has a discretion to
entertain or not to entertain a writ petition.
The Court has imposed upon itself certain
restrictions in the exercise of this power.
(See Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of
Trade
Marks
[MANU/SC/0664/1998
:
(1998) 8 SCC 1]) And this plenary right of
the High Court to issue a prerogative writ
will not normally be exercised by the Court
to the exclusion of other available remedies
unless such action of the State or its
instrumentality
is
arbitrary
and
unreasonable
so
as
to
violate
the
constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for
other valid and legitimate reasons, for which
the Court thinks it necessary to exercise the
said jurisdiction.

30. Applying the said judgements in
the facts of the present case, the Court finds
that the dispute so raised by the parties
centers around factual issues wherein
complex questions of facts are involved
whose determination requires oral evidence.
This Court in the present proceedings under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
cannot make any enquiry into disputed
questions of fact while taking evidence.

31. Even otherwise once there exist
arbitration clause in the agreement dated
5.9.2014
so
executed
between
the
respondents one hand and the petitioners on
the other hand and the petitioners being
signatories of the same and are further not
disputing it and also admitting that the
dispute itself is clearly arbitrable then while
applying the principles of law as culled out
as Hon. Apex Court, this Court finds its
inability to entertain the present writ petition
as the petitioners have adequate efficacious
remedy of arbitration as provided in Clause
23 of the agreement dated 5.9.2014.

32. Nonetheless Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 is self contained code
wherein not only necessary safeguards have
been provided but also jurisdiction has been
vested with the competent court under
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 and under Section 17 of the same
so as to warrant interim protection in
suitable cases which are filed or pending
before it. Thus, the apprehension of the
petitioners that this Court in the present
proceedings can only be grant interim
protection is out of context as specific
remedy as discussed above is available to
the
petitioners
under Arbitration
and
Conciliation Act, 1996.

33. Resultantly, the present writ
petition is dismissed as not maintainable on
the ground of alternative efficacious remedy
as provided under Clause 23 of the
agreement dated 5.9.2014 leaving it open to
the petitioners to seek remedy as available
under Section 23 of the Act of 1996.

Needless to say that any of the
observations made in the present judgment
may not be construed to the expression that
this Court has adjudicated the matter on
merits.
----------
(2022)05ILR A389
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.04.2022

BEFORE

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

Writ C No. 9000 of 2022

Om Prakash ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioner
Sri Shashi Kumar Mishra, Ms. Prachi Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Civil Law - Disaster Management -
Grant of compensation - The Disaster
Management Act, 2005 - provide for
effective management of disasters and
for matters connected therewith or
incidental
thereto
-
Notification
-
policy decision/clarification - providing
for the modalities with respect to
funds for expenditure to be incurred
from State Disaster Response Fund
(SDRF). (Para - 10,11)

Petitioner being father of deceased
-
entitled to Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation -
on account of death of his daughter due to
snake bite - Claim of petitioner kept
pending for last several years - ground -
viscera report has not been received -
viscera report was returned by FSL Mumbai
- ground - viscera from outside the State
are not being tested there - same sent back
to the concerned police station - same is
still pending. (Para - 4,8 )

HELD:-Petitioner
shall
prefer
a
representation before the respondent no.2,
District Magistrate within a period of one
month , who shall decide the claim of the
petitioner within a further period of one
month for grant of compensation/ex-gratia
payment to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-
without insisting for the requirement of
viscera
report
in
the
light
of
the
observation.(Para - 21)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-7)

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

1. Set of documents three in number
running to four pages produced by learned
Standing Counsel is taken on record.

2. Ms. Prachi Shukla, holding brief of
Sri Shashi Kumar Mishra, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Sri Sharad Srivastava,
learned Standing Counsel, who appears for
respondents no.1 to 3.

3. This is a petition filed by the father
of the deceased being Neetu seeking
following reliefs:-

"a. to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent no.2 to pay Rs.4
lakhs to the petitioner immediately which
has been sanctioned by the respondent no.3
on 06.09.2018 (Annexure No.1);

b. to issue a writ, order or
direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper under the circumstances of
the case;

c. to award cost of the petition to
the petitioner."

4. Factual matrix as worded in the
present writ petition are that the daughter of
the petitioner herein namely, Neetu, aged
about 18 years, expired due to snake bite on
21.08.2018 at about 1:00 P.M. (Noon). As
per the records it reveals that the Tehsildar,
Etah conducted an enquiry and tendered his
enquiry report on 21.08.2018, wherein the
death of the daughter of the petitioner due
to snake bite was confirmed. Records
further reveal that on 06.09.2018 the
respondent
no.3,
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate, Etah issued an office order
according its approval for grant of
Rs.4,00,000/-
as
compensation.
On
15.04.2019 a communication was issued by
the respondent no.3 mentioning therein that
the petitioner being the father of the
deceased
was
entitled
to
be
paid
Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation on account
of the death of his daughter due to snake
bite.
5 All. Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
391

5. As the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-
which was to be paid as a compensation on
account of death of the daughter of the
petitioner was not extended so proceedings
purported to be under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 was put to motion by
the petitioner and when the same was also not
acceded to then an appeal was also preferred
by the petitioner and the respondent no.2 by
virtue of his letter dated 04.04.2019 directed
for the disposal of the application purported
to be under the Right to Information Act,
2005.

6. Eventually, Kanoongo (Finance)
supplied the information to the wife of the
petitioner being the mother of the deceased
that
the
payment
of
an
amount
of
Rs.4,00,000/- was deferred and was made
subject to receipt of the viscera report.

7. This Court finds that there is a report
at page 20 (Annexure-4) of the paper book
dated 13.01.2019, wherein Senior Sub
Inspector, Police Station Mirhachi, District
Etah has issued a communication addressed
to Senior Senior Superintendent of Police,
District Etah mentioning therein that the
samples so drawn from the deceased were
sent for its testing to Forensic Scientific
Laboratory, Agra, however, the same could
not be processed by the Forensic Scientific
Laboratory, Agra on the pretext that the
sample can not be tested at Agra and the only
Forensic Scientific Laboratory is at Mumbai
can do the necessary test. Subsequently, on
02.02.2020 the viscera report was sent to
Forensic Scientific Laboratory, Maharashtra
at Mumbai through one of the constable so
posted therein, a copy thereof has been filed
as Annexure-5 to the paper book. Forensic
Scientific
Laboratory,
Maharashtra
at
Mumbai has shown its inability to conduct
testing of the viscera as according to it has no
jurisdiction to conduct test of the samples
which are outside the territorial jurisdiction of
Maharashtra.

8. As the petitioner herein has not
been paid the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-
which had already been sanctioned by the
respondents, thus he has filed the present
writ petition.

On
06.04.2022
this
Court
proceeded to pass the following order:-

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner
and
Sri
Sharad
Chandra
Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for
the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner
has filed this writ petition for following
reliefs:-

"a. to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent no.2 to pay Rs.4
lakhs to the petitioner immediately which
has been sanctioned by the respondent no.3
on 06.09.2018 (Annexure No.1);

b. to issue a writ, order or
direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper under the circumstances of
the case;

c. to award cost of the petition to
the petitioner."

While drawing attention towards
annexure-3 to this petition, it is submitted
that the claim of the petitioner is being kept
pending for last several years on the
ground that viscera report has not been
received. Attention was also drawn to
annexure-6 to the petition to point out that
viscera report was returned by FSL
Mumbai on the ground that viscera from
outside the State are not being tested there
and the same has been sent back to the
concerned police station. It is submitted
that the same is still pending.

This Court fails to understand the
ground for keeping the matter pending
392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
indefinitely. In case even if the sample has
been returned by FSL Mumbai on the
ground that outside samples are not tested
in Mumbai lab, this cannot be a ground for
keeping the claim pending for indefinite
period. The State authority should have
made arrangement to get the viscera report
from other FSL where such samples within
the State of U.P. or outside the State of U.P.
are tested.

Learned Standing Counsel is
directed to seek instructions from the
respondent no.2 under his signature within
a period of three weeks. The respondent
no.2 is at liberty to do the needful in the
meantime.

Put up this case on 21.4.2022 as
fresh."

9. Today, when the matter was taken
up, Sri Sharad Srivastava, learned Standing
Counsel has made a submission at bar that
he has complete instructions in the matter
and he does not propose to file any counter
affidavit and the writ petition be disposed
of at the admission stage without calling for
the response.

10. The Central Government in
exercise of power as conferred therein has
enacted an act by the nomenclature of the
Disaster Management Act, 2005 in order to
provide for the effective management of
disasters
and
for
matters
connected
therewith or incidental thereto.

11. In order to give ends to the aims
and the objects of creation of the Disaster
Management Act, 2005, on 27.06.2016
respondent no.1 issued a Notification
bearing
No.303/1-11-2016-4(G)/16
providing for the modalities with respect to
funds for expenditure to be incurred from
State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF). The
Notification dated 27.06.2016 issued by the
respondent
no.1
is
being
quoted
hereinunder:-

"उत्तर प्रदेर् र्ासन

राजस्व अनुिाग-11

 सूंख्या-303/1-11-20164(जी)/16

 लखनऊः भदनाूंकः 27 ज न,
2016

 अलधसूचिा

िारत सरकार द्वारा राज्य आपदा
मोचक भनभध और राष्टरीय आपदा मोचक
भनभध (2015-20) से व्यय के सम्बि में
मानक एवूं दरोूं को भनधाशररत करते हुये पत्र
सूंख्या-32-7/2014- एन०डी०एम०-1 भदनााँक
08.04.2015 के भबन्दु सूंख्या-13 में भनम्न
व्यवस्था दी गयी हैः-

13 State
specific
disaster within
the
local
context in the
State, which are
not included in
the notified list
of
disaster
eligible
for
assistance from
SDRF/NDRF,
can be met from
SDRF
within
the limit of 10%
of the annual
funds allocation
of the SDRF.
. Expenditure is to
be
incurred
from
SDRF only (and not
from
NDRF),
as
assessed by the State
Executive
Committee (SEC).
.
The
norm
for
various items will be
the
same
as
application to other
notified
natural
disaster,
as
listed
above, or
. In these cases, the
scale
of
relief
assistance
against
each item for 'local
disaster' should not
exceed the norms of
SDRF.
. The Flexibility is to
be applicable only
5 All. Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
393
after the State has
formally listed the
disaster for inclusion
and
notified
transparent
norms
and
guidclines
with
a
clear procdure for
identification of the
beneficiaries
for
disaster
relief
for
such local disaster;
with the approval of
SEC.

2. राज्य में बेमौसम िारी बाररर्,
आूंधी/त फान, आकार्ीय भबजली एवूं ल -
प्रकोप से प्रत्येक वषश बडी सूंख्या में जन-धन
की हाभन होती है। अतः िारत सरकार द्वारा
दी
गयी
उक्त
व्यवस्था
के
दृभष्टगत
र्ासनादेर्
सूंख्या-249/1-11-2015-4(
जी)/2015,
भदनाूंक
15.04.2015
(यथा
सूंर्ोभधत भदनाूंक 16.04.2015) को भनरस्त
करते हुये श्री राज्यपाल महोदय बेमौसम
िारी बाररर्, आूंधी/त फान, आकार्ीय
भबजली एवूं ल -प्रकोप को राज्य आपदा
घोभषत भकये जाने की सहषश स्वीकृभत प्रदान
करते हैं।

3. उक्त राज्य आपदा से प्रिाभवत
व्यन्धक्तयोूं / पररवारोूं को िारत सरकार द्वारा
राज्य आपदा मोचक भनभध के भलये भनधाशररत
मानक एवूं दरोूं के अनुसार राहत प्रदान की
जायेगी।

4. उक्त राज्य आपदाओूं के सम्बि में
होने वाला व्यय अनुदान सूंख्या-51 के
अन्तगशत
लेखार्ीषशक
''2245-प्राकृभतक
भवपभत्त के कारण राहत-05-स्टेट भडजास्टर
ररस्पाूंस
फण्ड-800-अन्य
व्यय-06-स्टेट
भडजास्टर ररस्पाूंस फण्ड से व्यय-09-राज्य
सरकार द्वारा घोभषत अन्य आपदाओूं हेतु
भडजास्टर ररस्पाूंस फण्ड से व्यय-42 अन्य
व्यय'' से वहन भकया जायेगा।

5. प्रदेर् सरकार द्वारा भलये गये
उपरोक्त भनणशय के अनुसार कायशवाही
सुभनभित की जाय।

ह०

(सुरेर् चन्द्रा)

प्रमुख सभचव।"

12. Subsequently, on 02.08.2018, the
respondent no.1 issued another Notification
which reads as under:-

11.

"उत्तर प्रदेर् र्ासन

राजस्व अनुिाग-11

सूंख्या- य ०ओ० 30/ 1-112018-4(जी)/2015

लखनऊ : भदनाूंक :: 02
अगस्त, 2018

अभधस चना

िारत सरकार द्वारा राज्य आपदा
मोचक भनभध और राष्टरीय आपदा मोचक
भनभध (2015-20) से व्यय के सूंबूंध में मानक
एवूं दरोूं को भनधाशररत करते हुये पत्र सूंख्या
32-7/2014-
एनडीएम-प्रथम,
भदनाूंक
08.04.2015 के भबन्दु सूंख्या-13 में भनम्न
व्यवस्था दी गयी है:-

Item
Norms of Assistance
State specific disaster within
the local context in the State,
which are not included in the
notified
list
of
disaster
eligible for assistance from
SDRF/NDRF, can be met
. Expenditure
is to be
incurred from SDRF only
(and not from NDRF), as
assessed
by
the
State
Executive Committee (SEC).
. The norm for various items
394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
from SDRF within the limit
of 10% of the annual funds
allocation of the SDRF.
will
be
the
same
as
application to other notified
natural disaster, as listed
above, or
. In these cases, the scale of
relief assistance against each
item
for
'local
disaster'
should not exceed the norms
of SDRF.
. The Flexibility is to be
applicable only after the
State has formally listed the
disaster for inclusion and
notified transparent
norms and guidclines with a
clear
procdure
for
identification
of
the
beneficiaries
for
disaster
relief for such local disaster;
with the approval of SEC.

2. िारत सरकार द्वारा की गयी
उक्त व्यवस्था के क्रम में अभधस चना सूंख्या-
303/ 1-11-2016-4 (जी)/2015, भदनाूंक
27.06.2016 द्वारा बेमौसम िारी वषाश,
आकार्ीय भवद्युत, आूंधी त फान एवूं ल -
प्रकोप को राज्य आपदा घोभषत भकया गया
है।

3. र्ासन की उपयुशक्त अभधस चना
भदनॉक 27.06.2016 द्वारा घोभषत आपदाओूं-
बेमौसम िारी वषाश, आकार्ीय भवद्युत,
आूंधी त फान एवूं ल -प्रकोप के साथ ही प्रदेर्
में नाव दुघशटना, सपशदूंर्, सीवर सफाई एवूं
गैस ररसाव तथा बोरबेल में भगरने से होने
वाली दुघशटना को राज्य आपदा घोभषत भकये
जाने की श्री राज्यपाल महोदय सहषश
स्वीकृभत प्रदान करते हैं।

4. मानव वन्य-जीव द्वन्द्व (ManAnimal Conflict) को िी राज्य आपदा
घोभषत भकये जाने पर सैद्धान्धन्तक सहमभत
हुई है। इस सूंबूंध में भवस्तृत भदर्ा भनदेर्
पृथक से भनगशत भकए जायेंगे।

5. उक्त घोभषत राज्य आपदाओूं
के सूंबूंध में होने वाला व्यय अनुदान सूंख्या-
51 के अन्तगशत लेखार्ीषशक '' 2245-
प्राकृभतक भवपभत्त के कारण राहत-05-स्टेट
भडजास्टर ररस्पाूंस फण्ड-800-अन्य व्यय06-स्टेट भडजास्टर ररस्पाूंस फण्ड से व्यय09-राज्य
सरकार
द्वारा
घोभषत
अन्य
आपदाओूं हेतु भडजास्टर ररस्पाूंस फण्ड से
व्यय-42-अन्य व्यय'' से वहन भकया जायेगा।

(रेणुका कुमार)

 अपर मुख्य सभचव।"

13. As certain clarifications were
required with respect to those contingencies
wherein whereat the deceased died on
account of snake bite (venom) and the
claim so preferred were being rejected on
the pretext that the viscera report was not
available so the respondent no.1 issued a
letter dated 08.07.2021 addressed to all the
District Magistrates throughout the State of
U.P. clearly providing as under:-

"अभत महत्वप णश

सूंख्या-157/एक-11-202004(जी)/2015-टी०सी

प्रेषक,

मनोज कुमार भसूंह,

अपर मुख्य सभचव,

उत्तर प्रदेर् र्ासन।

सेवा में,

समस्त भजलाभधकारी,

उत्तर प्रदेर्।

िािस्व अिुभार्-11

िििऊ : लदिाोंक : 08 िुिाई, 2021

लविय :- सपगदोंश से हुयी मृत्यु में
मृतक के आलित ों क अहेतुक सहायता
प्रदाि लकये िािे के सिन्ध में।

महोदय,

1.
उपयुशक्त
भवषयक
र्ासनादेर्
सूंख्या-य ०ओ०-20/एक-11-2018-
5 All. Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
395
4(जी)/2015 भदनाूंक 02.08.2018 में सपशदूंर्
को राज्य आपदा घोभषत करते हुए सपशदूंर्
से मृत्यु की दर्ा में प्रत्येक मृतक के आभश्रतोूं
को रू० 04.00 लाख की अहेतुक सहायता
भदया जाना प्राभवधाभनत है।

2. र्ासन के सूंज्ञान में आया है भक
सपशदूंर् से मृत्यु को प्रमाभणत करने के भलए
मृतक की भवसरा जाूंच हेतु फारेंभसक लैब
िेजी जाती है और मृतक की भवसरा जाूंच
ररपोटश की प्रतीक्षा में मृतक के आभश्रतोूं को
अहेतुक सहायता समय से उपलब्ध नहीूं
करायी जाती है। फारेंभसक स्टेट लीगल सेल
के अनुसार सपशदूंर् के प्रकरणोूं में भवसरा
ररपोटश को भप्रजवश करने का कोई औभचत्य
नहीूं है तथा उनके द्वारा अवगत कराया गया
है भक भवसरा जॉच ररपोटश से सपशदूंर् से मृत्यु
प्रमाभणत िी नहीूं होता है।

3. स्टेट मेभडको लीगल सेल के परामर्श
के क्रम में सपशदूंर् से मृत्यु की दर्ा में भवसरा
जाूंच ररपोटश की कोई प्रासूंभगकता न होने के
कारण सम्यक भवचारोपरान्त सपशदूंर् से
मृतक के आभश्रतोूं को अहेतुक सहायता
उपलब्ध कराये जाने हेतु भनम्न वभणशत प्रभक्रया
का पालन भकया जायः-

(1) मृतक का पूंचनामा कराया
जाय।

(2) मृतक का पोस्टमाटशम कराया
जाय।

(3) पोस्टमाटशम के पिात मृतक
की
भवसरा ररपोटश भप्रजवश करने की
आवश्यकता नहीूं है।

(4) सपशदूंर् से मृत्यु की दर्ा में
मृतक के आभश्रतोूं को अभधकतम 07 भदन के
अन्दर अहेतुक सहायता उपलब्ध करायी
जाय।

4. अतः इस सम्बि में मुझे यह
कहने का भनदेर् हुआ है भक सपशदूंर् से मृत्यु
के प्रकरणोूं में उपरोक्त प्रभक्रया का पालन
करते हुए मृतक के आभश्रतोूं को अहेतुक
सहायता उपलब्ध कराने सम्बिी प्रकरणोूं
को 07 भदन के अन्दर भनस्ताररत करने का
कष्ट करें।

िवदीय

(मनोज कुमार भसूंह)

अपर मुख्य सभचव।"

14. Perusal of the letter in the shape
of clarification dated 08.07.2021 issued by
the respondent no.1 addressed to all the
District Magistrates throughout the State of
U.P. will clearly reveal as under:

(a) Panchnama of the deceased is
to be conducted.

(b) Post mortem of the deceased
is mandatory.

(c) After post mortem there is no
need to preserve the viscera report.

(d) compensation to be paid
within a period of 7 days from the date of
death of the deceased, who dies on account
of snake bite.

(e) Viscera report does not certify
that the deceased died of snake bite
(venom).

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has sought to argue that the entire stand so
taken by the respondents in withholding the
payment of an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as
an ex-gratia compensation pursuant to the
death of the daughter of the petitioner on
account of snake bite due to unavailability
of viscera report is thoroughly unjustified
as once on 08.07.2021 the State of Uttar
Pradesh has come up with a policy decision
there is no need to await for obtaining
396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
viscera report for the grant of compensation
then obviously the petitioner was entitled to
be conferred with the benefit of ex-gratia
compensation within a period of 7 days.

16.

In
order
to
buttress
his
submission,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner has further argued that once in
the policy decision dated 08.07.2021 of the
State Government it has come on record
that viscera report does not certify the death
on account of snake bite (venom) then in
these
circumstances
withholding
of
monitory compensation in shape of exgratia payment is illegal.

17. Countering the said submission,
Sri Sharad Srivastava, learned Standing
Counsel, who appears for the State has
argued that in the case in question though
the samples were drawn from the daughter
of the petitioner were sent for testing at
Agra at first instance and thereafter to the
Forensic
Scientific
Laboratory,
Maharashtra at Mumbai but the same was
not tested on account that the Forensic
Scientific
Laboratory,
Maharashtra
at
Mumbai does not conduct testing as
according to it has no jurisdiction to
conduct test of the samples which are
outside
the
territorial
jurisdiction
of
Maharashtra and thereafter the samples
were sent to Forensic Scientific Laboratory
at Agra whereat on 20.04.2022 viscera
report has been obtained according to
which the following has been observed:-

"लवलध
लवज्ञाि
प्रय र्शािा, उ.प्र., आर्िा

प्रेषक,

2455

सूंयुक्त भनदेर्क,

भवभध भवज्ञान प्रयोगर्ाला उ०प्र०,

15 ताज रोड, आगरा-282001

सेवा में,

क्षेत्राभधकारी,सदर

एटा।

पत्राूंकः- 1437/TOX1/2022

जी.डी.नूं. 42. भद. 21.08.2018

राज्य बनाम......।

धाराः-......

 मृभतका का नाम कु० नीत ।

थानाः- भमरहची।

आपके पत्र सूं.-

 भदनाूंक. 18.04.2022

भवसरा/भवषाक्त वस्तु के प्रेषण अभधकारीः-

प्रेषण सूंदिशः-

भदनाूंक.------

उपयुशक्त माममले से सम्बन्धित प्रदर्श
प्रयोगर्ाला में भदनाूंक 18.04.2022 को भवर्ेष
वाहक द्वारा प्राप् हुये।

पासगि एवों सीि का लवविण

पााँच समुभदत प्लान्धस्टक जार व दो समुभदत
प्लान्धस्टक भडब्बी भजन पर भवर्ेष (CIVIL
SURGEONS OFFICE ETAH) मुद्रा की छाप
नम नानुसार अक्षत थी।

प्रदशो का लवविण

1. स्टमक का टुकडा मय कन्टेन्ट्स ।
एक समुभद्रत प्लान्धस्टक जार में।

2. आाँत का टुकडा ।

 एक
समुभद्रत प्लान्धस्टक जार में।

3. भलवर का टुकडा ।

एक
समुभद्रत प्लान्धस्टक जार में।

4. भकडनी का टुकडा ।

एक
समुभद्रत प्लान्धस्टक जार में।

5. स्पलीन का टुकडा ।

एक
समुभद्रत प्लान्धस्टक जार में।

6. रक्त का नम ना ।

एक
समुभद्रत प्लान्धस्टक भडब्बी में।

7. य रीन का नम ना ।

एक
समुभद्रत प्लान्धस्टक भडब्बी में।

पिीक्षण
परिणाम
5 All. Mita India Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
397

भवसरा के िागोूं (1-5) व वस्तु (6) एवूं (7)
में कोई रासायभनक भवष नहीूं पाया गया।"

18. According to learned Standing
Counsel the testing of the viscera report
itself shows that the venom which was
found in the blood of the deceased was
chemical poison only.

19. Learned Standing Counsel when
confronted
with
the
policy
decision/clarification dated 08.07.2021 as
referred to above could not dispute the
same and had made a submission at bar that
now in view of the policy decision dated
08.07.2021 the requirement of obtaining
viscera report for the grant of monitory
compensation/ex-gratia payment referable
to death on account of snake bite stands
dispensed with and what is to be seen is the
fact that the panchnama as well as post
mortem has been conducted or not.

20. Sri Sharad Srivastava, learned
Standing Counsel has thus argued that in
view of the letter of the Kanoongo
addressed to the petitioner now the
petitioner's claim will be processed and the
same will not be denied or the benefits
would not be denuded on the ground that
the viscera report is either not available or
not in favour of the petitioner.

21. Be that as it may be, in view of
the arguments so sought to be advanced
by the rival parties and further the fact
that the learned Standing Counsel has not
disputed
the
existence
and
the
applications
of
the
policy
decision/clarification dated 08.07.2021
that the requirement of obtaining viscera
report stands dispensed with, the present
writ petition is being allowed in the
following terms:-

(A) Petitioner within a period of
one month from today shall prefer a
representation before the respondent no.2,
District Magistrate, Etah alongwith the
certified copy of the order so passed today
annexing with complete documents in
support of his claim.

(B) The respondent no.2, District
Magistrate,
Etah,
on
receipt
of
the
representation
so
preferred
by
the
petitioner, shall decide the claim of the
petitioner within a further period of one
month for grant of compensation/ex-gratia
payment to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-
without insisting for the requirement of
viscera report in the light of the observation
made herein above.
----------
(2022)05ILR A397
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ C No. 15344 of 2019

Mita India Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Diptiman Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava

(A) Labour Law - principles of natural
justice in labour jurisprudence - applied
to ensure transparency and fairness in the
employer and employee dealings which in
turn
promote
industrial
peace

-
Distinction between - abandonment of
service & misconduct of unauthorized
absence from duty - abandonment of