# Prem Shankar Chaturvedi v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 660
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-27
- **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 24704 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rakesh Srivastava, Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prem-shankar-chaturvedi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47490
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

C.S.C.

A.
Practice
&
Procedure
-
Indian
Constitution, 1950 - Article 226 - The
present matter pertains to the private rivalry
between the parties therefore the writ is not
maintainable. (Para 7)
1 All. Prem Shankar Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
661
Writ Petition Rejected. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that the Permanent Lok Adalat has adopted
and we do not find any flaw with it. The
first respondent's claim cannot, therefore,
be said to be barred by limitation as urged
by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
has also questioned the imposition of
penalty in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on the
ground that the penalty imposed is
disproportionate, considering the fact that
the Insurance Company believed that they
validly conveyed the rejection of the claim
laid by the first respondent to the District
Magistrate.

14. In the totality of circumstances,
this Court finds that there is some
communication gap between the petitionerInsurance Company, the District Magistrate
and the claimant-respondent no.1, that has
all contributed to the delay in the ultimate
enforcement of the claim before the
Permanent
Lok
Adalat.
In
the
circumstances obtaining, equity would be
best adjusted if the penalty imposed by the
Permanent Lok Adalat is reduced by 50%
and determined at a figure of Rs.75,000/-,
instead of Rs.1,50,000/-.

15. In the circumstances that this is a
case where there was a miscommunication
between parties, this Court is of opinion
that Simple Interest at 9% per annum
ordered by the Permanent Lok Adalat from
the date of presentation of the petition,
ought to be substituted by an order
directing payment at the rate of 9% per
annum Simple Interest on the substantive
award of Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of the
award till realization.

16. In the result, this petition succeeds
and is allowed in part. The impugned
order dated 22.02.2020 passed by the
Permanent Lok Adalat in P.L.A. Case
No.196 of 2017 is modified to the extent
that in substitution of the direction to pay
penalty in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, the
penalty payable by the petitioner shall be a
sum of Rs.75,000/-. Also, the Simple
Interest awarded by the Permanent Lok
Adalat at the rate of 9% per annum on the
sum of Rs.2,50,000/- shall be substituted by
a direction to pay simple interest at the rate
of 9% per annum on the substantive award
of Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of the order
impugned, passed by the Permanent Lok
Adalat, until realization. The rest of the
award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat
is upheld.

17. Parties will bear their own costs
before this Court.
----------
(2022)01ILR A660
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Misc. Bench No. 24704 of 2021

Prem Shankar Chaturvedi ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anil Kumar Upadhyay, Bhup Chandra
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.
Practice
&
Procedure
-
Indian
Constitution, 1950 - Article 226 - The
present matter pertains to the private rivalry
between the parties therefore the writ is not
maintainable. (Para 7)
1 All. Prem Shankar Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
661
Writ Petition Rejected. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas
Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahatosav Smarak Trust
& ors. Vs V.R. Rudani & ors. (1989) 2 SCC 691
(followed)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava, J.
&
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Upadhyay,
learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Standing Counsel appearing on
behalf of State-respondents.

2. This petition has been filed
praying, inter alia, the following relief:

(i) A writ, order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus commanding and
directing the opposite party no. 2 and 3 to
consider and decide the representation
dated 01.10.2021 in accordance with law
(contained as Annexure No. 1) and directed
to the opposite party no. 5 and 6 to refund
the money of Rs. 1,25,000/- which has
been received in advance from petitioner
for the occasion of marriage ceremony of
petitioner's daughter in the interest of
justice.

3. Brief facts of the case as argued by
the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
in the month of December, 2020, the
petitioner fixed the date of marriage of his
daughter on 28.04.2021. The petitioner
gave Rs. 1,00,000/- through NEFT on
29.12.2020 to the respondent No. 5 in
advance for booking of marriage place. The
petitioner also gave Rs. 25,000/- in advance
for catering arrangements to the respondent
No. 6. In the month of March, April, 2021,
permission of marriage was not given
by the authorities concerned, due to which
the petitioner had no option but to postpone
the marriage of her daughter. In this regard
the petitioner had also informed the
respondent Nos. 5 and 6 much before the
date of marriage, i.e., 28.04.2021 through
telephone as well as through letter,
communicated to them. A photocopy of
such letter is annexed as Annexure-5. It is
also stated in the writ petition that the
petitioner has also send representation to
the higher authorities, but no heed has been
paid by the authorities.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner claims refund of
the money given by him to the respondent
Nos. 5 and 6, which was given to them
through NEFT, copies of which are
annexed with the present writ petition.

5.

Learned
Standing
counsel
appearing
for
the
respondent-State
submitted that the dispute involved in the
present writ petition between the parties is
private dispute. The present writ petition is
not maintainable under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and no mandamus can
be issued by this Court as prayed by the
petitioner.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree
Muktajee
Vandas
Swami
Suvarna
Jayanti Mahatosav Smarak Trust and
others Vs. V.R. Rudani and others,
(1989) 2 SCC 691 was pleased to observe
as under:

"15. If the rights are purely of a
private character no mandamus can issue. If
the management of the college is purely a
private
body
with
no
public
duty
662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mandamus will not lie. These are two
exceptions to mandamus. But once these
are absent and when the party has no other
equally convenient remedy, mandamus
cannot be denied. It has to be appreciated
that the appellants-trust was managing the
affiliated college to which public money is
paid as government aid . Public money paid
as government aid plays a major role in the
control, maintenance and working of
educational
institutions.
The
aided
institutions like government institutions
discharge public function by way of
imparting education to students. They are
subject to the rules and regulations of the
affiliating University. Their activities are
closely supervised by the University
authorities.
Employment
in
such
institutions, thereof, is not devoid of any
public character. So are the service
conditions of the academic staff. When the
University takes decision regarding their
pay scales, it will be binding on the
management. The service conditions of the
academic staff are, therefore, not purely of
a private character. It has super-added
protection by University decisions creating
a legal right-duty relationship between the
staff and the management. When there is
existence of this relationship, mandamus
cannot be refused to the aggrieved party."

7. After perusal of the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and after perusal of the record we
find that the dispute involved in the present
writ petition between the parties is a private
dispute and in view of the judgment
rendered in the case of Andi Mukta
(supra), no mandamus can be issued by
this Court and the present writ petition is
not maintainable under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the relief claimed
by the petitioner. The objection raised by
the learned Standing counsel for the State
appears to be justified.

8. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue
the other remedy available to him under
law.

9. Accordingly the present writ
petition is not maintainable and the same is
dismissed.
----------
(2022)01ILR A662
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Misc. Bench No. 28453 of 2021

Nirmala Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Zubair Hasan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., A.S.G.

A. Practice & Procedure - The application
received after the last date of submission cannot
be treated as valid application form and no
right, based upon the same, can be claimed by
such candidate. (Para 11)

The petitioner was negligent as the petitioner
sent her application form through registered
post on 27.10.2020 despite of having knowledge
of last date i.e., 30.11.2020, mentioned in the
notification. (Para 18)
Writ Petition Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited: