# Satya Narain Shukla & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 1274
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-05
- **Case number:** P.I.L. No. 35231 of 2018
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satya-narain-shukla-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52237
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Reservation-The Constitution (103rd )
Amendment Act, 2019- Article 15 (6) &
16 (6)-Petition seeking extension of benefit
of existing beneficiary oriented schemes
meant exclusively for SCs/STs/OBSc and
minorities to Below Poverty Line persons -
which fulfil the eligibility criteria-during
pendency Constitution 103rd Amendment Act
was passed -enables St. to make special
provisions for advancement of economically
weaker section- such changes are policy
matter-within the domain of Executive or
Legislature-matter of policy-open for the
Petitioners
to
represent
before
the
concerned Government. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
104. Thus, it is beyond the pale of
doubt that the scope of interference by an
appellate court for reversing the judgment
of acquittal recorded by the trial court in
favour of the accused has to be exercised
within the four corners of the following
principles:-

(i). That the judgment of
acquittal
suffers
from
patent
perversity;
(ii). That the same is based
on
a
misreading/omission
to
consider
material
evidence
on
record;
(iii).
That
no
two
reasonable views are possible and
only the view consistent with the
guilt of the accused is possible
from the evidence available on
record.

105. The appellate court, in order
to interfere with the judgment of acquittal,
would have to record pertinent findings on
the above factors, if it is inclined to reverse
the judgment of acquittal rendered by the
trial court.

106. In our considered opinion, the
trial court has passed a well reasoned and
detailed order, which, in view of settled
principle of law regarding reversal of
acquittal, needs no interference by this
Court. The view taken by the trial court can
not be said to be perverse, impossible and
illegal and as such, present government
appeal filed by the State has no force and is
accordingly dismissed.

107. Let a copy of this judgment
and order be forwarded to the court
concerned alongwith trial court record for
information and necessary compliance.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 1274
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

P.I.L. No. 35231 of 2018

Satya Narain Shukla & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
S.N. Shukla In Person, G.N. Pandey-In Person

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

Reservation-The Constitution (103rd )
Amendment Act, 2019- Article 15 (6) &
16 (6)-Petition seeking extension of benefit
of existing beneficiary oriented schemes
meant exclusively for SCs/STs/OBSc and
minorities to Below Poverty Line persons -
which fulfil the eligibility criteria-during
pendency Constitution 103rd Amendment Act
was passed -enables St. to make special
provisions for advancement of economically
weaker section- such changes are policy
matter-within the domain of Executive or
Legislature-matter of policy-open for the
Petitioners
to
represent
before
the
concerned Government. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of Himachal Pradesh & ors. Vs Satpal Saini
: (2017) 11 SCC 42

2.
Census
Commissioner
&
ors.Vs
R.
Krishnamurthy: (2015) 2 SCC 796,

3. U.O.I. Vs M. Selvakumar : (2017) 3 SCC 504

4. Rachna Vs U.O.I.: (2021) 5 SCC 638

5. Lily Thomas Vs U.O.I.: AIR 2000 SC 1650.
7 All. Satya Narain Shukla & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1275
6. Indira Sawhney Vs U.O.I.: [1992 Suppl. (3)
SCC. 217]

7. Janhit Abhiyan Vs U.O.I.: 2022 SCC OnLine
SC

(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

(1) Heard Shri S.N.Shukla and Shri
G.N. Pandey, petitioners-in-person, Shri
Sudhanshu
Chauhan,
learned
Counsel
representing the respondents no. 3, 4 and
Shri V.P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel
representing the State/respondents no. 1
and 2.

(2) This petition styled as Public
Interest Litigation was filed in the year
2018 seeking the following reliefs :-

1. issue a writ, order or
direction
in
the
nature
of
Mandamus to the respondents that
the benefit of existing beneficiary
oriented
schemes
meant
exclusively for SCs/STs/ OBCs and
minorities be extended to below the
poverty line (BPL) persons of all
other communities/castes also who
fulfill
the
eligiblity
criteria
applicable
to
persons
of
SCs/STs/OBCs/Minorities.
2. Issue a writ, order or
direction
in
the
nature
of
Mandamus to the respondents that
henceforth benefit of all beneficiary
oriented State assistance be given
uniformly to poor citizens of all
communities/castes also on the
basis of economics and/or other
verifiable objective criteria.
3. Issue such other writ,
order or direction as may be
deemed fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case to
fulfill the constitutional mandate
contained in the preamble, Article
14 and 21 and Part IV of the
Constitution."

(3) Petitioners, who appear in
person, have submitted that the concept of
the social and economic justice is to build a
welfare state and the same has been
recognised as a basic feature of our
Constitution. According to them, without
social and economic justice, there cannot
be political justice and as a corollary, a just
social order cannot be established without
removing inequalities in income and status.

(4) To the aforesaid regard,
petitioners have stressed on the wordings of
Article 37 of the Constitution of India and
have stated that Article 37 of the
Constitution of India makes it clear that
Directive Principles of the State Policies
are fundamental in the governance of the
country and it shall be duty of the State to
apply these principles in making laws.
Petitioners have also drawn our attenion to
Article 38 of the Constitution of India and
have urged that since Article 38 of
Constitution of India clearly mandates the
State to secure a social order for the
promotion of welfare of the people and the
State
shall
strive
to
minimise
the
inequalities in income, and endeavour to
eliminate inequalities in status, facilities
and
opportunities
not
only
amongst
individuals but also amongst group of
people residing in different areas or
engaged in different vocations. Thus, their
submission is that the denial of State
economic assistance under the beneficiary
oriented schemes for persons belonging to
SCs/STs/OBCs and Miniority Communities
to indigent persons/families of general
category meeting the eligibility criteria of
these schemes, solely on the basis of
caste/community, is in violation of their
1276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
right to equality under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India and as such, the same
cannot be sustained in view of Article 13 of
the Constitution.

(5) Petitioners have also urged that
apart from violation of the fundamental
rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21
of the Constitution, denial of State
assistance
being
provided
by
the
beneficiary
oriented
schemes
for
SCs/Stc/OBCs and miniorities to the poor
general category persons fulfilling the same
eligibility criteria is also contrary the
Preamble of the Constitution as well as the
Directive
Principles
of
State
Policy
contained in Article 37 and 38 of the
Constitution of India. Thus, petitioners
have prayed that the benefit of existing
beneficiary
oriented
schemes
meant
exclusively for SCs/ STs/ OBCs and
minorities be extended to below the
poverty line (BPL) persons of all other
communities/castes also who fulfil the
eligibility criteria applicable to persons of
SCs/STs/OBCs/Minorities.

(6) On the other hand, placing
reliance upon the decisions of the Apex
Court in State of Himachal Pradesh &
Others V/s Satpal Saini : (2017) 11 SCC
42 and Census Commissioner and Others
V/s R. Krishnamurthy: (2015) 2 SCC
796, learned Standing Counsel stated that
this petition styled as Public Interest
Litigation is not maintainable. According to
the learned Standing Counsel, the State of
Uttar Pradesh is running several schemes
for the upliftment of socially, economically
and
educationally
backward
classes,
citizens and action is being taken for the
same according to law. He stated that
Samajwadi Pension Scheme, which was
primarily based on caste and minority
status of an individual, was abolished by
the State Government and presently, State
is operating the income ceiling based
schemes for the welfare and development
of the citizen of all sections of the Society
through
various
schemes
including
'Vridhavastha Pension Scheme, Widow
Pension
Scheme,
Divyangjan
Pension
Scheme, Leprosy Pension Scheme etc'. He
further submits that the State Government
is also running 'Mukhyamantri Kishan
evan Sarvhit Bima Yojna', in which
financial assistance is also being provided
without any relation to any caste or
community and to all those bread earner
farmers
of
the
State,
who
become
temporarily/permanently disabled or in
case of death, subject to fulfilling financial
criteria. Further, various other schemes
have also been initiated by the State
Government,
including
'Mukhyamtri
Krihsak
Durghatana
Kalyan
Yojna,
National Family benefit scheme (Rashtreey
Parivarik Labh Yojna), Chief Minister
Abhyudaya Yojna etc. It has been also
contended that the State Government is
continuously working for the welfare of the
citizen of the State and various beneficiary
schemes are being operated for the
upliftment of peoples of all section of the
Society and the benefits of beneficiary
schemes are being provided to all the
sections of the society as far as possible.

(7) Elaborating his submission,
learned Standing Counsel has stated that
sustainable development goals in the State
are based on 16 Goals, 169 Targets and
their related indicators. In this regard, a
Committee has been constituted under the
chairmanship of the Additional Chief
Secretary/Principal
Secretary,
Social
Welfare Department, Government of UP for
reducing inequalities in the State as per the
SDG Goal No.10 and the said Committee
would complete the action through inter-
7 All. Satya Narain Shukla & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1277
departmental coordination for achieving
target of Goals. According to the learned
Standing Counsel, the State is also running
several Schemes for the upliftment and
development of weaker sections of the
society and reducing the inequalities in the
State and actions are being taken by the
respective
departments
of
the
State
Government of UP for the same according
to law.

(8) Placing reliance upon the
decisions of the Apex Court in Union of
India Vs. M. Selvakumar : (2017) 3 SCC
504, and Rachna Vs. Union of India :
(2021) 5 SCC 638, learned Counsel
representing the respondent no.3 has
submitted that in the present petition styled
as Public Interst Litigation, no mandamus
could be issued to frame a policy in a
particular manner. It has been submitted
that there is no averment of any breach of
fundamental rights of any individual.
According to the respondent no.3, relief
sought is very vague and very generalized
in nature. In this regard, he also placed
reliance upon the decision of the Apex
Court in Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India :
AIR 2000 SC 1650.

(9) Learned Counsel for the
respondent No.4/NITI Ayog has submitted
that it is settled law that no mandamus can
be issued to frame a policy and it is not the
domain of this Court to embark upon such
an exercise. It has also been contended that
the present petition styled as Public Interst
Litigation and relief sought therein is vague
as there is no mention of any specific
scheme, which the petitioners have sought
for the below poverty line and are already
in existence for the SCs/STs/OBCs or
minority communities. According to them,
there
are
several
scheme
of
the
Government of India for economically
weaker section of the society irrespective
of the caste or creed for the benefit of the
poor, like Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
employment Guarantee Scheme, Ayushman
Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana,
National Social Assistance Program, Prime
Minister Avas Yojna, Deendayal Antyodaya
Yojna etc. It has also been stated that vide
103rd amendment published on 12.01.2019
of the Constitution of India, Article-15(6)
and Article 16(5) have been incorporated in
the Constitution of India and the benefit of
reservation to the economically weaker
sections of Citizens has also been extended
for the purpose of admission in educational
institutions including private educational
institutions and in matters of public
employment. It has also stated that the
validity of the said amendment was also
upheld by the Apex Court. Thus, according
to them, the benefit of reservation in the
field of education and public employment
has already been extended to economically
weaker sections of the society. It has been
submitted that the States and the Union of
India are implementing various schemes
irrespective of caste or creed for benefit of
poor communities. There are several
schemes which are being implemented
exclusively for SC, ST and OBC, which are
primarily based on caste because it is
indeed undisputed that the large chunk of
population
so
excluded
are
also
economically backward along with being
socially and educationally backward.

(10)
 Having
regard
to
the
submissions of the parties and going
through the record available before us in
this petition styled as Public Interest
Litigation, what we find is that the relief
sought by the petitioners at first blush
appears to be an effort towards the
achievement of objects of a welfare State
and to do away any distribution of State
1278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
largesse based on caste rather it should be
based on economic criteria.

(11) However, the present petition
was filed in the year 2018 and noticeably
on 9th January, 2019, the Parliament of
India
enacted
the
Constitution
(One
Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019
which
enabled
the
State
to
make
reservations in higher education and
matters of public employment on the basis
of economic criteria alone, a path taken
averse to the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney
v. Union of India : [1992 Suppl. (3) SCC.
217], which says that reservations cannot
be based solely on economic criteria.

(12) The 103rd Amendment Act
amended Articles 15 and 16 of the
Constitution by inserting 15(6) and 16(6),
wherein Article 15(6) enables the State to
make
special
provisions
for
the
advancement of any economically weaker
section of citizens, including reservations
in educational institutions. It provided for
reservations in any educational institution,
including both aided and unaided private
institutions, except minority educational
institutions covered under Article 30(1) to
the extent of 10% and this ceiling was to be
independent
of
ceilings
on
existing
reservations.
Similarly,
Article
16(6)
enabled the State to make provisions for
reservation in appointments for economical
weaker section to the extent of 10% ceiling,
in addition to the existing reservations. The
said amendments were subject to challenge
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India : 2022
SCC OnLine SC, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
declared
that
the
Amendment and EWS Reservations were
constitutionally valid.

(13) During the course of hearing,
the aforesaid change in circumstances was
brought to the notice of the petitioners,
however, they persistently argued that the
issue raised by them is of a larger aspect
and not covered by the 103rd amendment
and raised the issue as to why the benefit of
existing
beneficiary
oriented
schemes
meant exclusively for SC/ST/OBC and
minorities cannot be extended exclusively
to the below poverty line persons of all
other
communities,
without
any
discrimination of caste or creed.

(14) Admittedly, the PIL filed by
the petitioners appears to be for the sole
objective of putting forth a narrative that
the provisions of all State assistance should
be based on economic criteria only instead
of on the basis of caste/community.
However, in the entire petition or in the
submission before this Court, neither any
endeavour was made nor any material was
produced before this Court as to which
scheme
already
existing
for
the
SCs/STs/OBCs/Minorities, the petitioner
wants this Court to extend to the below
poverty lines and as to how the said scheme
was beneficial to the below poverty lines
and not to the SCs/STs/OBCs/Minorities or
as to how the present writ could be
maintainable, which primarily seeks an
issuance of mandamus for devising of
policy or rule making, which essentially is
in the domain of the Executive/Legislature,
as the case may be. Howsoever avowed the
objective behind filing of this petition, the
issues raise fall in the domain of the
Executive/Legislatiure as they inovlve
policy
matters
having
far
reaching
consequences, threfore, the petitioners
should
pursue
the
same before
the
Executive/Legislature. We find ourselves
handicapped considering the limits of the
7 All. Smt. Laxminiya Vs. Deena Nath
1279
judicial review by Constitutional Courts in
such matters.

(15) In view of the consistent view
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this
issue, there can be no doubt that seeking
changes in an existing policy or law of
beneficiary
oriented
scheme
meant
exclusively for SCs/ STs/ OBCs and
Minorities, so as to be extended to below
the poverty line (BPL) persons of all other
communities/castes including BPLs who
belong to SCs/STs/ OBCs/Minorities lies
within the exclusive domain of the
Executive or the Legislature and is a matter
of policy.

(16) It shall be open for the
petitioners to give representations to the
Central/State Government espousing their
cause with relevant data and materials,
which
may
assist
the
concerned
Government in taking an objective view on
the issues raised in the present petition or to
canvass the same before the elected
representatives of the Parliament or State
Legislature, as the case may be.

(17) With these observations, we
dispose of this petition.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 1279
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Second Appeal No. 80 of 1985

Smt. Laxminiya ...Appellant
Versus
Deena Nath ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
A.N. Bhargava, R.P. Srivastava, R.S. Srivastava,
Raghvendra Shankar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
Chandra Prakash, Jai Prakash Rai, Kalindra
Kumar Rai, Pramod Kumar Srivastava, Tripathi
B.G. Bhai

Hindu Widow's Remarriage Act, 1856 -
Section 2 - Rights of widow in deceased
husband's property to cease on her
remarriage. Upon remarriage, a widow
ceases to have any right in the property
left by her deceased husband, and she is
treated
as
though
she
had
died
immediately after her second marriage.
Estate left by her deceased husband
devolves upon the next heirs of the
deceased
husband.
In
the
event
of
remarriage, a widow loses even the
limited interest in the property, and the
next heirs of the deceased husband
succeed to the same. (Para 19)

Hindu Widow's Remarriage Act, 1856 -
Section 2 -Plaintiff's case that Bhagirathia,
w/o Algu, after Algu's death, started living
with plaintiff's father Hira, and thus
plaintiff's father, and after his death, the
plaintiff became the owner of the disputed
land
to
the
divestment
of
all
the
defendants.
Defendants'
case
that
Bhagirathia, after the death of Algu,
performed
a
second
marriage
with
Mahadeo, and out of the said wedlock, one
son, Doodh Nath (defendant No. 2), was
born. Trial court observed that since
Doodh Nath (defendant No. 2), the son of
Bhagirathia, is in possession of the
disputed property, he would be deemed
the owner thereof. Lower appellate court
held that since the defendants had taken
the
plea
of
adverse
possession
of
Bhagirathia over the estate left by her
first deceased husband Algu, she would
not retain it as an absolute owner, and
hence the plaintiff's possession would be
deemed to be proved. Issue in Second
Appeal:

What rights did Bhagirathia succeed from
her deceased first husband Algu, and what
is the effect of her remarriage to Mahadeo