# Smt. Ganga Devi & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 419
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52727 of 2008
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Saral Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-ganga-devi-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44328
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Electricity Act, 2003Sections 53& 161 - Electricity Rules,
2005-claims-deceased
died
due
to
electrocution by a live electricity wire-the
petitioners reported the same following
the procedure u/s 161 of the Act-but the
Department
absolves
the
officials
responsibilities as per section 53 of the
Act and termed the accident as vis majorthere cannot be any doubt as regards the
sole cause of demise of the deceased
being electrocution-Since the distribution
line was maintained and owned by the
UPPCL, the UPPCL, in any event, cannot
avoid
liability
thereof-claimants
are
entitled for award of Rs. 1 lac in view of
the circular issued by State Government
dated 19 june 2008.(Para 1 to 17)

B.The law is well-settled that, even in
Tort, if not in statutes, the remedy of
compensation is available to a victim or
his family in the event of an accidental
death like electrocution. That, coupled
with
the
strict
liability
principle
formulated by the Supreme Court in
various cases, clearly indicates that, in the
present case, the UPPCL was liable for
payment of adequate compensation to the
petitioner.(Para 2 to 13) (E-6)

## Text

8 All. Smt. Ganga Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
419

20. For all the reasons afore-stated,
the impugned order dated 17.02.2022
passed by the respondent No.2 in Case
No.03247 of 2020 (Computerised Case
No.D202001010003247) (Bank of Baroda
vs. M/s Gayatri Development well Private
Limited)
under
Section
14
of
the
SARFAESI Act, 2002, cannot be sustained
and is hereby quashed. The respondent
No.2 is directed to pass an order afresh for
physical possession over the secured asset
in question to the petitioner under Section
14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 within 30
days from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order. Since the O.S.
No.1258 of 2020 is barred by provisions of
Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act,
therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the
aforesaid O.S. No.1258 of 2020 pending in
the court of Civil Judge/ Additional Civil
Judge (Senior Division) Agra, is herby
dismissed.

21. The writ petition is allowed to
the extent indicated above.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 419
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.11.2017

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52727 of 2008

Smt. Ganga Devi & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Hitesh Pachori

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Nirpendra Mishra, Sri Rajesh
Tripathi

A. Civil Law - Electricity Act, 2003Sections 53& 161 - Electricity Rules,
2005-claims-deceased
died
due
to
electrocution by a live electricity wire-the
petitioners reported the same following
the procedure u/s 161 of the Act-but the
Department
absolves
the
officials
responsibilities as per section 53 of the
Act and termed the accident as vis majorthere cannot be any doubt as regards the
sole cause of demise of the deceased
being electrocution-Since the distribution
line was maintained and owned by the
UPPCL, the UPPCL, in any event, cannot
avoid
liability
thereof-claimants
are
entitled for award of Rs. 1 lac in view of
the circular issued by State Government
dated 19 june 2008.(Para 1 to 17)

B.The law is well-settled that, even in
Tort, if not in statutes, the remedy of
compensation is available to a victim or
his family in the event of an accidental
death like electrocution. That, coupled
with
the
strict
liability
principle
formulated by the Supreme Court in
various cases, clearly indicates that, in the
present case, the UPPCL was liable for
payment of adequate compensation to the
petitioner.(Para 2 to 13) (E-6)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.
&
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri Niprendra Mishra,
learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2
and 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent no.1.

2. This writ petition prays for a
mandamus
directing
the
respondentElectricity
Department
to
pay
damages/compensation to the tune of Rs. 6
420 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
lakhs on account of the death of one
Ghanshyam Sharma to his heirs who are
the petitioners herein.

3. The claims appears to have been
made in respect of an accident that
occurred on account of Ghanshyam Sharma
having been electrocuted by a live
electricity transmission wire of a 11,000
K.V. A. Line.

4. The accident is dated 24.12.2007.
The accident appears to have been reported
where
after
the
petitioners
moved
applications and a report appears to have
been called for. This is evident from the
letter issued by the Executive Engineer of
the Electricity Distribution Division, I,
copy whereof is annexure no. 5 to the writ
petition.

5. A counter affidavit on behalf of the
respondent-Electricity Department has been
filed and annexure no. 1 thereto is the
report dated 31st October, 2008 entailing
therein the details of the accident resulting
in the death of the deceased. However, the
report dated 31st October, 2008 indicates
that it appears that the Ghanshyam Sharma,
the deceased had somehow the other come
into contact with the live wire as a result
whereof he died immediately. The defence
taken in the report is that there is no fault
on the part of any departmental official or
the concerned inspector and according to
them this was an accident that can be
termed as vis major.

6. We have gone through the
provisions as also the facts on record and it
will be appropriate to deal with the report
which
has
been
submitted
by
the
respondents. The report indicates that there
is a presumption raised about the accident
having taken place on account of some
divine intervention. We do not find any
material either in the counter affidavit or in
the report that may even suggest any
natural cause or otherwise that resulted in
the snapping of high tension wire resulting
in the accident. Thus, by no stretch of
imagination can it be said that the wire had
snapped bringing into contact to the
deceased as a result of any such natural
disaster. It is obvious that the wire snapped
which might have been either on account of
a technical defect or the strength and
weakness of the transmission line which is
exclusively
the
responsibility
of
the
Electricity Department. The fact remains it
was a live wire. In the absence of any
evidence of any such external element
causing the accident, the report having
come to a conclusion of the accident having
taken place on account of any natural
disaster is without any substance. The
accident is admitted and the death is also
admitted on account of the electrocution of
the deceased person who came into contact
with a live wire. It is the duty of the
respondent-department to maintain and
secure the transmission lines that are
already energized. A live wire if snaps,
causes an interruption of supply and is
taken
care
of
by
equipments
for
immediately de-energizing the wire in the
span of transmission where such fault has
occurred. The snapping of the wire in the
instant case ought to have resulted in
putting off the electric current thereby deenergizing the wire that had fallen down
after having snapped. Even, otherwise, the
inspection and maintenance staff of the said
area was under an obligation for ensuring a
safe maintenance of the transmission lines.
It
was,
therefore,
the
duty of
the
respondent-department
to
ensure
safe
maintenance and up keep of the said lines
in which there appears to be a fault. The
accident, therefore, has occurred which
8 All. Smt. Ganga Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
421
could have been
prevented
had
all
precautions been taken by the respondentdepartment.
The
report
absolves
the
officials and the department without
adverting
to
it's
responsibilities
and
obligations as per Section 53 of the 2003
Act and the Safety Requirements as per the
Electricity Rules 2005.

7. Coming to the procedure and the
rules applicable to the controversy, it would
be apt to bring on record that such
accidents
occurring
on
account
of
Distribution, Supply or Use of electricity is
taken care of under Section 161 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 which is extracted
hereinunder:-

"161. Notice of accidents and
inquiries.- (1) If any accident occurs in
connection
with
the
generation,
transmission, distribution, supply or use
of electricity in or in connection with,
any part of the electric lines or electrical
plant of any person and the accident
results or is likely to have resulted in loss
of human or animal life or in any injury
to a human being or an animal, such
person shall give notice of the occurrence
and of any such loss or injury actually
caused by the accident, in such form and
within such time as may be prescribed, to
the Electrical Inspector or such other
person as aforesaid and to such other
authorities
as
the
Appropriate
Government may by general or special
order, direct.

(2)
The
Appropriate
Government may, if it thinks fit, require
any Electrical Inspector, or any other
person appointed by it in this behalf, to
inquire and report--

(a) as to the cause of any
accident affecting the safety of the public,
which may have been occasioned by or in
connection
with,
the
generation,
transmission, distribution, supply or use
of electricity, or

(b) as to the manner in, and
extent to, which the provisions of this Act
or rules and regulations made thereunder
or of any licence, so far as those
provisions affect the safety of any person,
have been complied with.

(3) Every Electrical Inspector or
other person holding an inquiry under
sub-section (2) shall have all the powers
of a civil court under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 Of 1908) for the
purpose of enforcing the attendance of
witnesses and compelling the production
of documents and material objects, and
every person required by an Electrical
Inspector be legally bound to do so
within the meaning of section 176 of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

8. The said provision is referable to
the Rules that had already been framed
under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910
being the Indian Electricity Rules 1956,
Rule 44-A of the 1956 Rules is extracted
hereinunder:

"[44A. Intimation of Accident.--
If any accident occurs in connection with
the generation, transmission, supply or use
of energy in or in connection with, any part
of the electric supply lines or other works
of any person and the accident results in or
is likely to have resulted in loss of human
or animal life or in any injury to a human
being or an animal, such person or any
authorised person of the State Electricity
Board/Supplier, not below the rank of a
Junior Engineer or equivalent shall send to
the Inspector a telegraphic report within 24
hours of the knowledge of the occurrence of
the fatal accident and a written report in
the form set out in Annexure XIII within 48
422 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
hours of the knowledge of occurrence of
fatal and all other accidents. Where practicable a telephonic message should also be
given to the Inspector immediately the
accident comes to the knowledge of the
authorised officer of the State Electricity
Board/Supplier
or
other
person
concerned.]"

9. The said Rules provide for a Form
meant for reporting electrical accidents.
The said Form is extracted hereinunder:

FORM
FOR
REPORTING
ELECTRICAL ACCIDENTS

[Rule 44A]

1. Date and time of accident.

2.
Place
of
accident.
(Village/Town, Tehsil /Thana, District and
State).

3. System and voltage of supply.
(Whether EHV /HV /L V Line, sub-station/
generating station/ consumer's installations/
service lines/ other installations).

4. Designation of officer in
charge of the supplier in whose jurisdiction
the accident occurred.

5. Name of owner / user of
energy in whose premises the accident
occurred.

6. Details of victim(s):

(a) Human:

S
l.
N
o
N
a
m
e
Fathe
r's
Nam
e
Sex
of
victi
m
Full
Posta
l
Addr
ess
Appr
oxim
ate
F
at
al
/n
o
nfa
ta
l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

(b) Animal:

Sl.
No
Descri
ption
of
animal
(s)
Nu
mb
er(s
)
Nam
e (s)
of
owne
r(s)
Ad
dre
ss(e
s)
of
ow
ner
(s)
Fat
al/n
onfata
l
1
2
3
4
5
6

7. In case the victim(s) is/are
employee(s) of supplier:-

(a)
designation
of
such
person(s).

(b) brief description of the
job undertaken if any.

(c)
whether
such
person/persons was/were allowed to work
on the job.

8. In case the victim(s) is / are
employee(s) of a licensed contractor:-

(a) did the victim(s) possess
any
electric
workmen's
permit(s)
supervisor's
certificate
of
competency
issued under rule 45? If yes, give number
and date of issue and the name of issuing
authority.

(b) name and designation of
the person who assigned the duties of the
victim(s)

9. In case of accident in the
supplier's system, was the permit to work
(PTW) taken?

10. (a) Describe fully the nature
and extent of injuries, e.g. fatal/ diablement
(permanent or temporary) of any portion of
the body or burns or other injuries.

(b ) In case of fatal accident,
was the post-mortem performed ?

11. Detailed causes leading to the
accident.
8 All. Smt. Ganga Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
423

(To be given in a separate sheet
annexed to this form)

12. Action taken regarding firstaid, medical attendance, etc. immediately
after the occurrence of the accident (give
details).

13.
Whether
the
District
Magistrate and Police Station concerned
have been notified of the accident (if so,
give details).

14. Steps taken to preserve the
evidence in connection with the accident to
extent possible.

15 Name and designation(s) of
the person(s) assisting, supervising the
person(s) killed or injured.

16. What safety equipments were
given to and used by the person(s) who met
with this accident (e.g. rubber gloves,
rubber mats, safety belts and ladders, etc.)?

17. Whether isolating switches
and other sectionalising devices were
employed to deaden the sections for
working on the same? Whether working
section was earthed at the site of work?

18. Whether the work on the live
lines
was
undertaken
by
authorised
person(s)? If so, the name and the
designation of such person(s) may be
given.

19.
Whether
artificial
resuscitation treatment was given to the
person(s) who met with the electric
accident? If yes, how long was it continued
before its abandonment?

20. Names and designations of
persons present at and witnessed the
accident.

21.
Any
other
information/remarks."

10. With the coming into force of the
2003 Act, a further provision was made by
the promulgation of the Intimation of
Accidents ( Form and Time of Service of
Notice) Rules, 2005. This also contains the
Form for reporting electrical accidents. The
said
Rules
of
2005
are
extracted
hereinunder
together
with
the
Form
prescribed therein.

"In
exercise
of
the
powers
conferred by clause (w) of sub-section (2)
of section 176 of the ElectricityAct, 2003
(36 of 2003) the Central Government
hereby makes the following rules regarding
the form and time of service of notices of
electrical accidents, namely:-

1.
Short
title
and
commencement. - [(1) These rules may be
called the Intimation of Accidents

(Form and time of Service of
Notice) Rules, 2005.]

(2) They shall come into
force on the date of their publication in the
Official Gazette.

2. Definitions- (1) In these rules,
unless the context otherwise requires,-

(a)
"Act"
means
the
Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003)

(b) "Inspector" means the
Chief Electrical Inspector or the Electrical
Inspector appointed under subsection

(1) of section 162 of the Act.

(2)Words
and
expression
used and not defined in these rules but
defined in the Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of
2003), shall have the meanings respectively
assigned to them in that Act.

3. Intimation of accidents- (1) If
any accident occurs in connection with the
generation,

transmission, supply or use of
electricity in or in connection with, any part
of the electric lines or

other works of any person and the
accidents results in or is likely to have
resulted in loss of human or

animal life or in any injury to a
human being or an animal, such person or
424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
any authorised person of the generating
company or licensee, not below the rank of
Junior Engineer or equivalent shall send to
the Inspector a telegraphic report within 24
hours of the knowledge of the occurrence
of the fatal accident and a report in writing
in Form A within 48 hours of the
knowledge of occurrence of fatal and all
other
accidents.
Where
possible
a
telephonic message should also be given to
the Inspector immediately, if the accident
comes to the knowledge of the authorised
officer of the generating company/licensee
or other concerned.

(2) For the intimation of the
accident, telephone numbers, fax numbers
and addresses of Chief Electrical Inspector
or Electrical Inspectors, District Magistrate,
police station, fire brigade and nearest
hospital
shall
be
displayed
at
the
conspicuous place in the generating station,
sub-station, enclosed sub-station/switching
station and maintained in the office of the
in-charge/owner of the Medium Voltage
(MV)/High
Voltage
(HV)/Extra
High
Voltage (EHV) installations."

FORM A

FORM
FOR
REPORTING
ELECTRICAL ACCIDENTS

1. Date and time to accident.

2. Place of accident.

(Village/Town,
Tehsil/Thana,
District and State).

3. System and voltage of supply
[Whether Extra High Voltage (EHV)/High
Voltage (HV)/Low Voltage (LV) Line,
sub-station/generation station/ consumer's
installations/service lines/other
installations].

4. Designation of the officer-incharge of the generating company/licensee
in whose jurisdiction the
accident occurred.

5. Name of owner/user of energy
in whose premises the accident occurred.

6. Details of victim(s):

(a) Human

S
l.
N
o
N
a
m
e
Fat
her'
s
Na
me
Sex of
victim
Ful
l
Pos
tal
Ad
dre
ss
Appr
oxim
ate
F
at
al
/n
o
nfa
ta
l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

(b) Animal

Sl.
No
Descript
ion
of
animal(s
)
Num
ber(s
)
Nam
e (s)
of
owne
r(s)
Ad
dre
ss(e
s)
of
ow
ner
(s)
F
at
al
/n
o
nfa
ta
l
1
2
3
4
5
6

7. In case the victim(s) is /are
employee(s) of supplier:-

(a) Designation of such person(s);

(b) brief description of the job
undertaken, if any:

(c) Whether such person/persons
was/were allowed to work on the job.

8. In case the victim(s) is/are
employees(s) of a licensed contractor,-

(a) did the victim(s) possess any
electric workmen's permit(s), supervisor's
certificate of competency?
8 All. Smt. Ganga Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
425
If yes, give number and date of issue and
the name of issuing authority;

(b) name and designation of the
person who assigned the duties of the
victim(s).

9. In case of accident in the
system of the generating company/licensee,
was the permit to work

(PTW) taken?

10.(a) Describe fully the nature
and
extent
of
injuries,
e.g.,
fatal/disablement (permanent or

temporary) of any portion of the
body or burns or other injuries.

(b) In case of fatal accident, was
the post mortem performed?

11. Detailed causes leading to the
accident.

(To be given in a separate sheet
annexed to this form).

12. Action taken regarding first
aid, medical attendance etc. immediately
after the occurrence of the

accident (Give details).

13.
Whether
the
District
Magistrate and Police Station concerned
have been informed of the accident

(If so, give details).

14. Steps taken to preserve the
evidence in connection with the accident to
extent possible.

15. Name and designation(s) of
the person(s) assisting, supervising the
person(s) killed or injured.

16. What safety equipments were
given to or used by the person(s) who met
with this accident (e.g. rubber gloves,
rubber mats, safety belts and ladders etc.)?

17. Whether isolating switches
and other sectionalizing devices were
employed to deaden the sections for
working on the same. Whether working
section was earthed at the site of work.

18. Whether the work on the live
lines
was
undertaken
by
authorised
person(s)? If so, the name and the
designation of such person(s) may be
given.

19.
Whether
artificial
resuscitation treatment was given to the
person(s) who met with the electric
accident. If yes, how long was it continued
before its abandonment?

20. Names and designation of
persons present at, and witnessed, the
accident.

21. Any other information /
remarks.

11. The accident which has been
reported in the present case is in the Form
as provided for in Rule 44-A as is evident
from perusal of C.A-1 to the counter
affidavit.

12. Thus the entire procedure and the
formality either as per the old Rules or the
2005 Rules was carried out by the
respondents and the report was submitted
on 31st October, 2008 about the death of
the deceased in the accident caused by
electrocution on 24.12.2007.

13. The power to award compensation
and the maximum limit thereof is governed
by the Circulars of the Board. Now the
Board of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.
has enhanced the previous amount of Rs.
50,000/- which was fixed as the minimum
vide Boards circular dated 19th June, 2008
to Rs. 1 lakh. A copy of the said circular
dated 19th June, 2008 has been produced
before the Court which is extracted
hereinunder:

m0iz0 ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM
m0iz0 ljdkj dk midze
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
( Govt. Of Uttar Pradesh Undertaking )
'kfDr Hkou foLrkj] 14 v'kksd ekxZ] y[kuÅ&226001
426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
la[;k 2400 vkS0l0 2008&09 1⁄41251⁄2 ,0,l@2008
fnukad 19 twu 2008

dk;kZy;& Kki

m0iz0 ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds
=qfViw.kZ fo|qrh; vf/k"Bkiu ds lEidZ esa vkus ls ckgjh
O;fDr;ksa dh ?kkrd ,oe~ lk/kkj.k nq?kZVuk ls gqbZ
viaxrk ij vuqxzg /kujkf'k vuqeU; fd;s tkus lEcU/kh
dk;kZy; Kki l[;k&1780&vkSl0la0&17@ikdkfy

2006&19 1⁄41251⁄2,0,l@2001] fnukad 19-406 esa fuEuor~ la'kks/ku rRdky izHkko ls fy;s tkrs gS
%&

1⁄4d1⁄2 orZeku esa ?kkrd ekuo fo|qr nq?kZVuk
ds QyLo:i vuqeU; ns; vuqxzg /kujkf'k :0
50]000@& 1⁄4:i;k ipkl gtkj1⁄2 ds LFkku ij
:0&1]00]000@& 1⁄4:i;k ,d yk[k1⁄2 izfr O;fDr gksxhA

1⁄4[k1⁄2 ckgjh O;fDr@ O;fDr;ksa dh lk/kkj.k
nq?kZVuk esa gqbZ iw.kZ viaxrk dh fLFkfr esa orZeku esa
vuqeU; {kfriwfrZ :0& 50]000@& 1⁄4:i;s ipkl gtkj1⁄2
ls c<+kdj :0&1]00]000@&1⁄4:i;s ,d yk[k1⁄2 izfr
O;fDr rFkk vkaf'kd viaxrk dh fLFkfr esa :0
1]00]000@& 1⁄4:0 ,d yk[k1⁄2 dh /kujkf'k dh vtZu
{kerk esa fpfdRlh; izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij gq,
izfr'kr gkzl ds vuqlkj x.kuk dj vuqikfr vuqxzg
/kujkf'k vuqeU; dh tk;sxh ftldh vf/kdre lhek
:0 ,d yk[k gksxhA

1⁄4x1⁄2 i'kqvksa dh ?kkrd nq?kZVuk gsrq vuqeU;
vuqxzg /kjkf'k :0 5000@&1⁄4:i;s ikWp gtkj1⁄2 vuqeU;
dh tk;sxhA

izR;sd fo|qr nq?kZVuk dh fo|qr lqj{kk
funs'kky; vFkok vU; laLFkkuksa }kjk dh xbZ tkWpksa dks
laKku esa ysdj foHkkxh; tkap dh tk;s vkSj {kfriwfrZ
ds :i esa Hkqxrku dh xbZ ?kujkf'k dh olwyh fo|qr
nq?kZVuk gsrq mRrjnk;h 1⁄4;fn dksbZ gks rks1⁄2 dkfeZd
1⁄4vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh1⁄2 ls vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh ds
vfrfjDr dh tk;sA

mDr vkns'k fnukad 19-6-2008 vFkok
blds mijkUr gksus okyh fo|qr nq?kZVuk ds izdj.k ds
lEcU/k esa izHkkoh gksxkA

v/;{k

la[;k 2400 1⁄411⁄2 vkSl&17 ikdkfy@2008
rn~fnukad

izfryfi%& fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ
,oe~ vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq iszf"kr %&

1⁄411⁄2
leLr
izcU/k
funs'kd
iwokZapy@if'pekapy ------------------

fuxe fyfeVsM dkjiksjs'ku ------------------

1⁄421⁄2 eq[; vfHk;Urk ty fo|qr]m0iz0 ikoj
dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM

1⁄431⁄2 leLr eq[; vfHk;Urk 1⁄4forj.k1⁄2 m0iz0
ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM dks bl vk'k; ls fd os
vius Lrj ls mDr vkns'k dh izfr vf/kuLFk
vf/kdkfj;ksa@bdkbZ;ksa dks miyC/k djk nsaA

1⁄441⁄2 leLr mi egkizcU/kd] m0iz0 ikoj
dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsMA

1⁄451⁄2 leLr vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk m0iz0 ikoj
dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsMA

1⁄461⁄2 egkizcU/kd] ys[kk ,oe~ lEizs{kk m0iz0
ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM

1⁄471⁄2 mi egkizcU/kd 1⁄4ys[kk1⁄2] m0iz0 ikoj
dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsMA

1⁄481⁄2
leLr
ofj"B
dkfeZd
vf/kdkjh@dkfeZd vf/kdkjh] m0iz0 ikoj dkjiksjs'ku
fyfeVsMA

1⁄491⁄2 vuqlfpo] dkfeZd foRr uhfr] m0iz0
ikoj dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsMA

1⁄4101⁄2 dkjiksjs'ku 1⁄4eq01⁄2] 'kfDr Hkou ds
leLr vf/kdkjh@vuqHkkx@f'kfojA

1⁄4111⁄2
dEiuh
lfpo]
m0iz0
ikoj
dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsMA

1⁄4121⁄2
dV
Qkby@
i=koyh
la[;k&8&,e@92 A

vkKk ls

g0vi0

19@6@08

 1⁄4 v'kksd dqekj1⁄2

 mi egkizcU/kd 1⁄4vkS0l01⁄2

14. It is thus evident that according to
the Board itself, in such accidents, apart
from any other claim that one can make
under the provisions aforesaid the Board
has taken a decision to award Rs. 1 lakh as
the compensation to the claimants.

15. The petitioners have, therefore,
made out a clear case on the admitted facts
as per the report submitted by the
respondents and in view of the same having
been interpreted by us hereinabove for the
award of Rs. 1 lakh.

16. We accordingly, allow this
petition and direct the respondent nos 2 and
8 All. M/s ASP Traders Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
427
3 to forthwith release a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to
the petitioners, keeping in view the
aforesaid circular of the Board leaving it
open to the petitioners to seek further
remedy that may be available to them in
respect of any enhanced amount of
compensation if permissible in accordance
with law.

17. The payment shall be made within
two months of the date of production of a
certified copy of the order.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 427
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ-Tax No. 955 of 2022

M/s ASP Traders ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rahul Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Tax Law - Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017 read with IGST Act -
Sections 129(3) & 129(5) - Central Goods
and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - Rule
142(3) - Once the proceedings in respect
of notice u/s 129(3) of the Act stood
concluded in terms of Section 129(5) of
the Act read with Rule 142(3) of the
Rules, no mandamus can be issued to the
Assistant
Commissioner,
State
Goods
(respondent No. 3) to pass an order u/s
129(3) of the CGST/UPGST/IGST Act.
(Para 7)
Admittedly, a notice u/s 129(3) of the CGST Act
was issued by the respondent No. 3 to the
petitioner. Pursuant thereto the petitioner
deposited the amount on his own in form GST
DRC-03 and intimated it to the respondent No.
3. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 has issued
an
order
in
form
GST
DRC-05.
Thus,
proceedings in respect of the aforesaid notice
u/s 129(3) of the CGST Act stood concluded in
terms of mandate of sub-section (5) of S.129.
Hence, relief sought by the petitioner cannot be
granted since the matter is concluded as per
legislative mandate. (Para 6)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.
&
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. Heard Shri Rahul Agarwal, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nimai
Das, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel along with Shri B.P. Singh
Kachhawaha, learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed
praying for the following relief:

"(a) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
directing the respondent no. 3 to make
available the copy of the order passed
under Section 129(3) in due compliance of
Section 129(4) of the U.P. Goods and
Services Tax Act pertaining to the seizure
of
goods
covered
by
notice
dated
21.01.2022 issued under Section 129(3) of
the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act in
form GST MOV. 07 (Annexure-3 to the
writ petition);

(b) issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Mandamus directing the
respondent no. 3 to pass consequential
orders under Section 129(3) of the U.P.