# Smt. Kamlesh Devi & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 385
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-25
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 15864 of 2018
- **Bench:** Salil Kumar Rai, Surendra Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kamlesh-devi-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51429
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Indian
Penal
Code,1860Sections 45 & 326-A-acid attack-The
petitioners
sought
enhanced
compensation and rehabilitation measures
for the injuries and losses suffered-Under
the Uttar Pradesh Rani Laxmi Bai Mahila
Evam Bal Samman Kosh rules,2015 acid
attack
victims
are
entitled
to
compensation and medical support-the
386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioners submitted various application
to
District
Magistrate,
District
Legal
Service
Authority
and
even
National
Commission for women but no heed was
paid-Held, The court emphasized the
State's duty under Article 21 to ensure
treatment and rehabilitation for acid
attack victims-the court criticized the
government for failing to verify and
reimburse medical expenses, despite the
petitioners providing detailed bills-The
court directed the Uttar Pradesh Govt. to
pay Rs. 5,26,000/- to the petitioners.(Para
1 to 29)

The writ petition is allowed. .( E-6)

List of cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Smt. Kamlesh Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
385
public and social interest. Power is to be
exercised strictly adhering to the statutory
provisions and fact situation of a case.
"Public authorities cannot play fast and loose
with the powers vested in them." A decision
taken in an arbitrary manner contradicts the
principle of legitimate expectation. An authority
is under a legal obligation to exercise the power
reasonably and in good faith to effectuate the
purpose for which power stood conferred. In
this context, "in good faith" means "for
legitimate reasons". It must be exercised bona
fide for the purpose and for none other. [Vide
Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji [1951
SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] , Sirsi
Municipality v. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis
[(1973) 1 SCC 409 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 207 :
AIR 1973 SC 855] , State of Punjab v. Gurdial
Singh [(1980) 2 SCC 471 : AIR 1980 SC 319] ,
Collector (District Magistrate) v. Raja Ram
Jaiswal [(1985) 3 SCC 1 : AIR 1985 SC 1622] ,
Delhi Admn. v. Manohar Lal [(2002) 7 SCC
222 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1670] and N.D. Jayal v.
Union of India [(2004) 9 SCC 362 : AIR 2004
SC 867] .]"

21. We have also considered the
submission of counsel for petitioner on
estoppel. Admittedly, since the year 1995 till
date no development on the land in dispute has
taken place. It is not the case of petitioners or
M/s MSAS that they have invested or changed
the nature of property. The property is lying as it
did on 05.01.1995, when the resolution was
passed. Thus, no case of estoppel is made out.
Even otherwise, once it is proved that the
resolution itself is without any authority, no case
for estoppel is made out. The law relied upon
by the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of
the case.

22. In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent
that even the very resolution of the Municipal
Corporation is illegal, without any authority of
law and is a fraud upon the statute. The
Municipal Corporation could not have passed
the said resolution. Therefore, since the
resolution itself is found without any authority
of law, consequential lease deed also can not
stand. Thus, no case for interference with the
impugned order cancelling the lease deed
 is made out.

23. The Writ Petition No.5539 (M/B)
of 2013 and Writ Petition No.5591 (M/B)
of 2013 are dismissed. The Writ Petition
No.9211 (M/B) of 2011 has become
infructuous as petitioner of the same, now
after cancellation of lease deed, has no
right over the land in dispute. Interim
orders are discharged.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 385
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.01.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Writ C No. 15864 of 2018

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

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ranjeet Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri S.N. Shukla

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Indian
Penal
Code,1860Sections 45 & 326-A-acid attack-The
petitioners
sought
enhanced
compensation and rehabilitation measures
for the injuries and losses suffered-Under
the Uttar Pradesh Rani Laxmi Bai Mahila
Evam Bal Samman Kosh rules,2015 acid
attack
victims
are
entitled
to
compensation and medical support-the
386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioners submitted various application
to
District
Magistrate,
District
Legal
Service
Authority
and
even
National
Commission for women but no heed was
paid-Held, The court emphasized the
State's duty under Article 21 to ensure
treatment and rehabilitation for acid
attack victims-the court criticized the
government for failing to verify and
reimburse medical expenses, despite the
petitioners providing detailed bills-The
court directed the Uttar Pradesh Govt. to
pay Rs. 5,26,000/- to the petitioners.(Para
1 to 29)

The writ petition is allowed. .( E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. Parivartan Kendra Vs U.O.I. & ors.. WP(C)
No. 867 of 2013

2. Laxmi Vs U.O.I. WP(Crl.) No. 129 of 2006 ,

3. Laxmi Vs U.O.I. (2014) 4 SCC 457

4. Laxmi Vs U.O.I.(2016) 3 SCC 669

5. Muhim Vs St. of U.P & ors. PIL No. 18294 of
2016

6. Chameli Singh Vs St.of U.P.(1996)AIR SC
1051 Consumer Edu. & Research Centre Vs
U.O.I. (1995) 3 SCC 42

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,
J.)

Heard Sri Ranjeet Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.N.
Shukla, representing the State-respondents.

2. The petitioners have filed the writ
petition praying for the following reliefs :-

(i) issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
and directing the respondents to enhance
the amount of compensation upto Rs.26
lakh to the petitioners.

(ii) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding and directing the respondents
to provide suitable job/employment to the
petitioner
no.1
according
to
her
educational qualification.

(iii) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding and directing the respondents
to provide compensation to the petitioner
no.2.

3. The facts of the case shorn of
unnecessary details is that petitioner no.1 is
the mother of petitioner no. 2. They are
residents of village- Gorai, Police Station-
Iglas, District- Aligarh. On 31.12.2015, the
petitioners sustained serious acid attack
injuries, in respect of which a first
information report was lodged by Brijesh
Kumar, husband of petitioner no.1 and
father of petitioner no. 2 on the same day at
Police Station- Iglas, District- Aligarh as
Case Crime No. 820 of 2015 u/s 452 and
326-A I.P.C. Soon after the incident, the
petitioners were admitted in J.N. Medical
College,
Aligarh
Muslim
University,
Aligarh, where primary medical treatment
was given to the petitioners. Thereafter, the
petitioners went for medical treatment at a
private hospital, namely, Perfect Life
Hospital, Mathura, where the plastic
surgery, etc., of petitioner no. 1, Smt.
Kamlesh Devi, was done. She was also
treated in Sawai Maan Singh Hospital,
Jaipur. In the aforesaid acid attack,
petitioner no. 1, Smt. Kamlesh Devi,
sustained 30% chemical burn injuries
causing serious injuries on face, throat,
right eye and right ear.

4.

After
investigation,
the
Investigating Officer submitted charge-
2 All. Smt. Kamlesh Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
387
sheet u/s 452 and 326-A I.P.C. against the
accused, Kumarpal and Sundar. Vide order
dated 13.07.2018 passed in S.T. No. 437 of
2018, State Vs. Kumarpal & Another, the
trial court convicted and sentenced the
accused u/s 452, 326-A I.P.C.

5. Brijesh Kumar, husband of
petitioner no.1 submitted an application on
06.09.2016 before the respondent no. 3,
Secretary, District Legal Service Authority,
Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as "DLSA,
Aligarh")
for
compensation
for
the
petitioners. He also moved an application
dated 03.09.2016 through registered post
on 16.09.2016 to the respondent no. 2,
District Magistrate, Aligarh to provide
financial assistance for medical treatment
of petitioners. The petitioners had also
approached the National Commission for
Women, New Delhi for payment of
compensation which was referred vide
letter dated 03.08.2016 by the Commission
to the DLSA, Aligarh but DLSA, Aligarh
did not give any compensation to the
petitioners. The qualification of petitioner
no. 1 is Intermediate and she has also
obtained
a
Diploma
in
Computer
Application. In this regard, a certificate has
been issued to her by the Manager of the
institute,
namely,
Brilliant
Computer
Education, New Delhi. The petitioners
belong to very poor family residing in rural
area of District- Aligarh and have some
agricultural land as the only means of
income for their livelihood. In the medical
treatment of the petitioners, husband of
petitioner no.1 had to sell the agricultural
land through registered sale deed dated
22.04.2017. The petitioners had earlier filed
a WRIT- C No. 23884 of 2017 (Smt.
Kamlesh Devi and another Vs. State of U.P.
and others) which was disposed of by a
Division
Bench
of
this
Court
on
26.05.2017. In compliance of the direction
passed in the aforesaid writ petition, on
03.07.2017 the petitioners submitted a
representation before the respondent no. 1
by registered post annexing the certified
copy of the order dated 26.05.2017 and
other relevant papers with a prayer to
provide compensation and employment
according to the qualification of petitioner
no. 1.

6. Averments have been made in the
writ petition that the petitioner no. 1 is
entitled to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-
under Uttar Pradesh Rani Laxmi Bai
Mahila
Evam
Bal
Samman
Kosh
Niyamawali, 2015 (hereinafter referred to
as the ''U.P. Niyamawali, 2015'') amended
vide
government
notification
dated
30.09.2015 for the acid attack injuries
suffered by her.

7. The petitioners have also claimed
that as per the judgement of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Parivartan Kendra Vs.
Union of India and Others passed in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 867 of 2013, they are
entitled to be compensated for the expenses
of Rs.26,00,000/- incurred by them in their
medical treatment of acid attack injuries.
The petitioners have filed photocopies of
first information report, report of the acid
burn injuries received by her, charge-sheet
filed after investigation, judgement of the
trial
court
convicting
the
accused,
representations submitted by the petitioners
to Secretary, DLSA, Aligarh and District
Magistrate, Aligarh and to the National
Commission for Women, New Delhi,
testimonials regarding qualification of
petitioner no. 1, reminder issued by the
petitioners
to
Home
Secretary,
U.P.
Goverment at Lucknow for compliance of
order dated 26.05.2017 passed in WRIT- C
No. 23884 of 2017 (Smt. Kamlesh Devi
and another Vs. State of U.P. and others).
388 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The petitioners have relied on following
judgements of the Apex Court in support of
their petition :-

(i) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 867
of 2013, Parivartan Kendra Vs. Union of
India and Others

(ii) Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 129 of
2006, Laxmi Vs. Union of India

8. In the counter affidavit dated
05.07.2018, the respondent nos. 2 and 3
have made averment that petitioners have
sustained simple injuries of chemical burns.
The Committee constituted under Uttar
Pradesh Rani Laxmi Bai Mahila Evam Bal
Samman
Kosh
in
its
report
dated
18.10.2017 has recommended grant of
Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the
petitioners. Report regarding aforesaid
amount
has
been
accepted
by
the
Secretary/Prescribed Authority under the
Uttar Pradesh Rani Laxmi Bai Mahila
Evam Bal Samman Kosh. It has also been
averred that the petitioners' application for
compensation submitted to DLSA, Aligarh,
has been rejected by the Chairman, DLSA,
Aligarh vide order dated 21.01.2017 on the
ground that the trial court has not made
recommendation
for
payment
of
compensation to the petitioners. The
petitioners
were
provided
medical
treatment at J.N. Medical College, Aligarh.
The respondents have complied with the
order dated 21.11.2017 passed in Contempt
Application (Civil) No. 4522 of 2017. The
petition was dismissed accordingly. The
petitioners have claimed compensation for
Rs.26,00,000/- but have not submitted bill
vouchers, receipts in support of the
aforesaid money spent by them. It has also
been submitted that on the direction of the
Hon'ble High Court, District Magistrate,
Aligarh constituted a 5 member Medical
Board which in its report dated 18.10.2017
submitted that petitioner no. 1, Kamlesh
Devi is entitled for financial aid of
Rs.3,00,000/-.

9. The respondent no. 2 has made
averment in the counter affidavit dated
22.11.2022 that in compliance of Court's
order dated 14.11.2018 passed in the writ
petition, on the direction of the District
Magistrate, a 5 member Medical Board was
constituted by the C.M.O., Aligarh. The
medical board after medically examining
the injuries of the petitioners and the bill
vouchers submitted by them has in its
report dated 19.11.2022 submitted that
petitioner no. 1, Smt. Kamlesh Devi
sustained acid burn injuries due to which
she has become 70% disabled. The
petitioner no. 2, Rishi Kumar was found
victim of 3% acid burn injury. The
petitioners
have
submitted
unverified
bill/voucher/receipts of Rs.5,20,437/-. In
the counter affidavit, it has been submitted
that since the petitioner no. 1 received 70%
acid burn injuries, thus under the U.P.
Niyamawali,
2015,
the
maximum
admissible amount of Rs.3,00,000/- has
been paid to her.

10. After perusal of the averments
made in the counter affidavit dated
22.11.2022 and hearing learned counsel for
both the parties, the Court on 13.03.2023
passed the following order :-

"Heard
learned
counsel
for
petitioner and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

The
petitioners,
acid
attack
victims, are claiming compensation to the
tune of about Rs. 26,00,000/- i.e. the
amount which has been spent on their
treatment. The petitioners have appended
details to show the aforesaid medical
expenses.
2 All. Smt. Kamlesh Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
389

On the matter being taken up on
14.11.2018, the Court has proceeded to
pass the following order:-

"Although pleadings have been
exchanged in this matter, counter affidavit
filed by the State is not adequate.

The petitioners are acid attack
victims and are claiming compensation to
the tune of Rs.26 lacs that is the amount
which has been spent on their treatment.
The petitioners have appended details to
show the aforesaid expenses.

It would be in the interest of
justice, if the District Magistrate takes the
assistance of the Chief Medical Officer or
some specialised doctors to look into the
medical papers of the petitioners and to
assess as to what are the actual expenses
which have been incurred by them on their
treatment. The petitioners may be examined
also for this purpose. All this may be done
within a period of one month from today.
After proper examination of the issue and
the inquiry into the matter, a fresh affidavit
may be filed by the State.

List after a month.

A copy of the order may be given
to Shri Nimai Das, learned Standing
Counsel to be sent to the District
Magistrate, Aligarh for compliance."

In response to the aforesaid order,
the District Magistrate, Aligarh-second
respondent proceeded with the matter and
thereafter
District
Probation
Officer,
Aligarh wrote a letter dated 17.11.2022 to
the Chief Medical Officer, Aligarh stating
therein that the re-medical examination of
Smt. Kamlesh Devi, wife of Brijesh Kumar,
resident of village Gorai, Police Station
Iglas, District Aligarh-first petitioner be
conducted by the specialized acid burn
doctors and also verified her document of
bill-vouchers. Consequently, the Chief
Medical Officer, Aligarh has constituted a
five member committee for re-medical
examination of petitioners on 17.11.2022.
In response thereof, on 19.11.2022 the first
petitioner and her son namely Rishi
Kumar-second petitioner appeared before
the Medical Board and their re-medical
examination
was
conducted
by
the
Specialist
doctors-members
of
the
committee.
In
the
said
medical
examination, the bills, which have been
incurred towards the medical expenses, the
same has also been furnished to the
committee for verifying the said documents.
The committee has verified the documents
and submitted its report dated 19.11.2022
which is appended as Annexure No.4 along
with supplementary affidavit filed by the
second respondent dated 22.11.2022. In the
said report, the Medical Board has
acknowledged that the petitioner has
actually incurred medical expenses of Rs.
5,20,437/- but in view of the Government
Order 255/60-3-2015-13 (11)/14 dated
6.2.2015 first petitioner was accorded Rs.
3,00,000/- as compensation on account of
disability (10 to 30 %) due to acid attack.

Learned counsel for petitioners,
in this backdrop, has vehemently contended
that so far as the actual expenses, which
have been incurred towards the medical
expenses, the respondent has acknowledged
Rs. 5,20,437/- but in most arbitrary
manner, in the light of the aforesaid
Government Order, only an amount of Rs.
3,00,000/- has been paid, whereas actually
the first petitioner has got disability of the
acid attack of 70%. In this backdrop, he
has placed reliance on the scheme known
as "Uttar Pradesh Rani Laxmibai Mahila
Samman Kosh Niyamawali, 2015" issued
by the State Government dated 6.2.2015,
which is also brought on record as
Annexure No.SA-1 to the supplementary
affidavit dated 29.1.2020 filed by the
petitioners. He submits that under the
Scheme in the Head of Facilities to crime
390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
tortured ladies, the petitioners' case is fully
covered vide para 2 and the petitioners are
entitled for treatment expenses by the State
Government under the aforesaid Scheme.
In support of his submissions, learned
counsel for the petitioners has also placed
reliance on the judgment passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) 18294 of 2016
(Muhim Vs. State of U.P. and others),
wherein certain directions were issued vide
order dated 4.5.2016. Reliance has also
been placed on the order dated 7.10.2016
passed in Writ-C No. 44094 of 2016
(Momin Vs. State of U.P. and others).

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, we are of the
considered opinion that in spite of the
directions of this Court and the Scheme
being available as well as the report of the
five specialist doctors to the District
Magistrate endorsed by the Chief Medical
Officer,
Aligarh
verifying
that
the
petitioners
have
actually
incurred
Rs.5,20,437/-, the actual medical expenses
have not been disbursed to the petitioners
till date.

Let the first respondent-Secretary
(Home), Govt. of U.P., Lucknow file his
personal affidavit in the matter so that
justice may be ensured in favour of the
petitioners, who are acid victims.

On the request of Sri Piyush
Shukla, learned Standing Counsel, the
matter is adjourned for the day.

List this matter on 29.3.2023 in
top ten of the cases."

11. Thereafter, counter affidavit dated
28.03.2023 was submitted on behalf of
respondent no. 2 in which it was stated that
in compliance of Court's order dated
13.03.2023, the petitioner no.1/victim was
re-examined by a team of medical officers
which in its report dated 21.03.2023
submitted that the petitioner/victim, Smt.
Kamlesh Devi sustained 30% acid burn
injury on lower half of mouth and chin,
front of neck, front of left chest with
auxilla, left side front of abdomen, left arm
and 2/3 forearm, back of left shoulder, back
of right elbow, front of right thigh upto
knee and upper portion of left thigh front
area. Due to acid burn injuries, the victim's
face is 3 to 4 % burned, 0.5% neck has
burnt and her face has been deformed. Her
disability is 70% (physical 30% and visual
40%). In the counter affidavit, it has also
been averred that on the basis of the report
of the medical board and District Probation
Officer, Aligarh, the Secretary/Designated
Authority, Uttar Pradesh Rani Laxmi Bai
Mahila
Evam
Bal
Samman
Kosh,
Lucknow, recommended for payment of
Rs.2,00,000/- and the amount will be paid
by the aforesaid Secretary. The issue of
payment is now pending with the aforesaid
Secretary/Designated Authority and no
proceeding is pending at the level of Home
Department. It has also been averred that
the
State
Government
order
dated
23.05.2014 provides for 100% free medical
treatment facility to the acid attack victims
in government hospitals in the State of
Uttar Pradesh but the petitioners have not
availed the free medical treatment facility.
After perusal of the averments made in the
counter affidavit dated 28.03.2023 and
hearing the respondents, the Court on
27.04.2023 passed the following order :-

"................In
this
backdrop,
learned counsel for the petitioners placed
reliance upon paragraph 4 of the writ
petition
indicating
therein
that
the
petitioners were admitted in J.N.Medical
College,
Aligarh
Muslim
University,
Aligarh where the primary treatment was
given to the petitioners. It is also pressed
once the condition of the first petitioner
2 All. Smt. Kamlesh Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
391
became critical, she was shifted to the
private hospital. In this backdrop, he has
placed reliance upon the compliance
affidavit filed on behalf of the second
respondent wherein it was indicated in
compliance of the order dated 14.11.2018,
the District Magistrate, Aligarh proceeded
with the matter and thereafter the District
Probation Officer, Aligarh wrote a letter
dated 17.11.2022 to the Chief Medical
Officer, Aligarh stating therein that the remedical of Smt. Kamlesh Devi wife of Sri
Brijesh Kumar, resident of Gorai Police
Station Iglas, District Aligarh is to be
conducted by the Specialist Acid burn
doctors and also verify her documents and
bill vouchers. Accordingly, the Chief
Medical Officer, Aligarh constituted a five
members committee for re-medical of
petitioners on 17.11.2022. In pursuance of
which, the petitioners appeared before the
Medical Board and their re-medical was
conducted
by
the
specialist
doctors,
members of committee. It is also averred in
paragraph 9 of the said affidavit that the
voucher
bills
so
submitted
by
the
petitioners, were also reverified. It has also
been averred that all documents related to
bill vouchers were examined thoroughly
and after calculation, the expenses of
treatment comes to the tune of Rs.
5,20,437/-. Thereafter, considering all
aspect of the matter, the committee has
submitted its report on 19.11.2022 and the
same has been approved by the District
Magistrate, Aligarh on 19.11.2022. A copy
of the said report dated 19.11.2022 of five
member committee along with approval of
District Magistrate and Chief Medical
Officer, Aligarh is brought on record as
Annexure No. 4 to the compliance affidavit
dated 22.11.2022.

In view of the aforesaid once bill
vouchers so submitted by the petitioner
were
examined
thoroughly
and
duly
verified by the five members committee and
the respondent authorities have calculated
that the petitioner has actually incurred
expenses of Rs. 5,20,437/- towards medical
treatment, we are of the considered opinion
that the State cannot raise an objection that
the petitioner has undergone treatment
under the private hospital, therefore, she is
not entitled for reimbursement of medical
expenses.
Surprisingly,
respondent's
counter-affidavit is also silent whether any
efforts were made by the respondents for
actual assessment of expenses which
incurred towards treatment of minor and
further any compensation has ever been
approved for him who is also an acid victim
and sustained injuries.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances, we deem it appropriate
before issuing a mandamus for release of
the amount in question, let the Principal
Secretary Home, Government of U.P. at
Lucknow revisit in the matter and file a
personal affidavit on or before the next date
of listing explaining therein under what
circumstances the actual expenses incurred
towards the treatment of the first petitioner
has not been paid till date and secondly
why the respondents had kept mum towards
the trauma faced by the minor and why the
compensation has not been released in his
favour.

List
this
matter
again
on
15.5.2023 in the top 10 of the cases.

Let a copy of this order be
supplied to Sri Piyush Shukla, learned
Standing Counsel free of cost for necessary
compliance."

12. In compliance of Court's order
dated 27.04.2023, respondent no. 2 had
filed counter affidavit dated 13.05.2023 in
which it has been submitted that the
petitioners have not complied with the
procedure provided under Rule 12-ख of
392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
U.P. Niyamavali, 2015, for undergoing
treatment in private hospital. Their case
was not referred by the C.M.O./C.M.S. of
the Medical College/District Hospital.
Therefore, they are not entitled for payment
of the medical expenses incurred by them.
It has also been submitted that under the
aforesaid U.P. Niyamavali, 2015, an
amount
of
Rs.3,00,000/-
has
been
transferred to the account of petitioner no.
1 on 21.03.2023 and on 21.03.2023,
recommendation has been made to the
concerned Secretary of Government of U.P.
for payment of Rs.2,00,000/- under the
provisions of U.P. Niyamavali, 2015. After
perusal of the averments made in the
aforesaid counter affidavit, the Court on
15.09.2023 passed the following order :-

"1.
It
has
been
stated
in
paragraph 11 of the personal affidavit of
the Principal Secretary Home, Uttar
Pradesh, Lucknow that the petitioner no. 1
has been paid a total sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-
under the relevant scheme in lieu of the
medical expenses incurred on her treatment
because of the acid attack on her. It has
been stated that Rs. 5,00,000/- referred
above includes Rs. 3,00,000/- paid on 13th
November, 2017 which is admitted by the
petitioner no. 1 in the writ petition and also
additional Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid to the
petitioner no. 1 on 21st March, 2023. The
payment of additional Rs. 2,00,000/- has
been denied by the counsel for the
petitioners on the basis of instructions
received by him. No records have been
annexed with the personal affidavit of the
Principal Secretary indicating payment of
the additional Rs. 2,00,000/- to the
petitioner no. 1.

2. The Principal Secretary Home,
Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow shall file a fresh
affidavit showing the payment of additional
Rs. 2,00,000/- as referred in paragraph 11
of the previous affidavit within two weeks
from today.
3. List again on 10th October, 2023."

13. In compliance of the aforesaid
order, respondent no. 1 filed counter
affidavit dated 08.10.2023. In the counter
affidavit, it has been submitted that in
compliance of the order dated 15.09.2023
passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the
present case, the prescribed authority of
Uttar Pradesh Rani Laxmi Bai Mahila
Evam Bal
Samman Kosh Yojana,
Lucknow, sent a communication letter
dated 05.10.2023 to Special Secretary
(Home), Lucknow for payment of
Rs.2,00,000/- to petitioner no.1, Smt.
Kamlesh Devi through R.T.G.S. in her
bank account. The petitioners have
already been paid Rs.3,00,000/- and
Rs.2,00,000/-, total Rs.5,00,000/- on
13.11.2017
and
04.10.2023.
This
Hon'ble
Court's
order
has
been
complied with.

14. In case of Laxmi Vs. Union of
India, (2014) 4 SCC 457, the Hon'ble
Apex Court as given several directions to
the States/Union Territories to regulate sale
of acid and other corrosive substances so
that
it
may
not
be
purchased
by
unauthorized persons for illegal purposes.
It has also directed the State for full
medical treatment, short-term as well
as long term, for specialised plastic
surgery,
connective
surgeries,
providing
specialised
psychological
treatment to the acid attack victims to
help them to come out of the horror
and trauma of the acid attack and for
their rehabilitation.

15. In Laxmi Vs. Union of
India, (2016) 3 SCC 669, the Apex
Court inter alia held, thus :
2 All. Smt. Kamlesh Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
393

13.
Insofar
as
the
proper
treatment, aftercare and rehabilitation of
the victims of acid attack is concerned, the
meeting convened on 14.03.2015 notes
unanimously that full medical assistance
should be provided to the victims of acid
attack and that private hospitals should
also provide free medical treatment to such
victims. It is noted that there may perhaps
be some reluctance on the part of some
private hospitals to provide free medical
treatment and, therefore, the concerned
officers in the State Governments should
take up the matter with the private
hospitals so that they are also required to
provide free medical treatment to the
victims of acid attack.

14. The decisions taken in the
meeting read as follows:

The States/UTs will take a serious
note of the directions of the Supreme Court
with regard to treatment and payment of
compensation to acid attack victims and to
implement these directions through the
issue of requisite orders/notifications.

The private hospitals will also be
brought on board for compliance and the
States/UTs will use necessary means in this
regard. No hospital/clinic should refuse
treatment
citing
lack
of
specialized
facilities.

First-aid must be administered to
the victim and after stabilization, the
victim/patient could be shifted to a
specialized facility for further treatment,
wherever required.

Action may be taken against
hospital/clinic for refusal to treat victims of
acid
attacks
and
other
crimes
in
contravention of the provisions of Section
357C of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.

17.
We,
therefore,
issue
a
direction that the State Governments/Union
Territories should seriously discuss and
take up the matter with all the private
hospitals in their respective State/Union
Territory to the effect that the private
hospitals should not refuse treatment to
victims of acid attack and that full
treatment should be provided to such
victims including medicines, food, bedding
and reconstructive surgeries.

18. We also issue a direction that
the hospital, where the victim of an acid
attack is first treated, should give a
certificate that the individual is a victim of
an acid attack. This certificate may be
utilized by the victim for treatment and
reconstructive surgeries or any other
scheme that the victim may be entitled to
with the State Government or the Union
Territory, as the case may be.

16. In Parivartan Kendra (supra),
the Apex Court had held about the amount
of compensation to be paid to the acid
attack victim as thus :-

"12. ........It is pertinent to
mention here that the mandate given by this
Court in Laxmi case nowhere restricts the
Court from giving more compensation to
the victim of acid attack, especially when
the victim has suffered serious injuries on
her body which is required to be taken into
consideration by this Court. In peculiar
facts, this Court can grant even more
compensation
to
the
victim
than
Rs.3,00,000/-."

17. In the instant case, the Hon'ble
Apex Court directed the government to
award a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to
the main victim (Chanchal) who has
suffered 28% burn on her body and
Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the main
victim's sister, Sonam, who has suffered
lesser extent of acid burn injury than her
elder sister.
394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18.

Two
schemes
have
been
formulated in the State of Uttar Pradesh in
regard to the grant of compensation to
victims of acid attack, namely;

(i)
Uttar
Pradesh
Victim
Compensation
Scheme (formulated
in
terms of the directions issued by the
Supreme Court in Laxmi Vs Union of
India: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
129 of 2006 and under Section 357-A of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973). The
scheme envisages a victims' compensation
fund from which payment is made on the
application of the victim or her/his
dependent by the District Legal Services
Authority. The quantum of compensation is
governed by Schedule-I to the scheme
where a maximum of Rs. 3 lacs is payable;
and

(ii) Uttar Pradesh Rani Laxmi Bai
Mahila Samman Kosh Rules, 2015 which
came into effect on 6 February 2015. The
Rules have provided for the setting up of a
fund for monetary and medical relief to
acid attack survivors and the process of
paying compensation has been specified in
Rule 12. The Rules were modified on 30
September 2015 with retrospective effect
and
the
amount
was
enhanced
to
Rs.10,00,000/- in case of death and
Rs.5,00,000/- in other cases where the acid
attack injury is 30% or more.

19. The State Government has also
issued a Government Order on 23 May
2014 to the effect that all acid attack
victims should be provided free medical aid
at the cost of the State exchequer. The State
Government has proposed a twenty five
bedded speciality ward in the Department
of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at
King George Medical College, Lucknow.
The compensation to the victim is paid
upon an assessment of injuries by a duly
constituted Medical Board.

20. A Division Bench of Allahabad
High Court in PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION (PIL) No. 18294 of 2016,
Muhim Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others,
vide
order
dated
04.05.2016,
issued
following directions :-

(i)
The
Principal
Secretary,
Medical Health and Education shall, within
a month from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order, proceed to
formulate administrative directions to the
District Collectors;

(ii) The State Government shall
also take all necessary steps to ensure that
the District Collectors give wide publicity
to the above schemes which have been
made by the State as well as in regard to
the assumption by the State of full
responsibility of ensuring treatment, both
medical and rehabilitative, to all victims of
acid attack in the State; and

(iii) The State Legal Services
Authority as well as the District Legal
Services Authorities shall take up the
matter on priority and disseminate vital
information
in
regard
thereto.
The
monitoring of the performance of the
schemes for compensation payable to
acid attack victims, shall be carried out
by the State Legal Services Authority
and
the
District
Legal
Services
Authorities.

21. The Court also directed the State
to pursue the setting up of the twenty five
bedded speciality ward at King George
Medical College, Lucknow with high
priority and to duly issue necessary
directions to subserve the proper treatment
of acid attack victims.
2 All. Smt. Kamlesh Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
395

22. The trial court in Sessions Trial
Case No. 437 of 2018, State Vs. Kumarpal
and Another u/s 452, 326-A I.P.C. in its
judgement and order dated 13.07.2018
while
convicting
the
accused,
had
sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for
10 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- to be
paid to the victim as compensation. The
trial court did not direct the Legal Services
Authority to pay any compensation to the
victim. The Chairman of District Legal
Services Authority, Aligarh vide order
dated 21.01.2017 rejected the application of
the petitioner/victim for compensation
scheme of 2014 on the ground that the trial
court has not recommended payment of any
compensation to the victim.

23. From the above discussion, it is
clear that the petitioners have been
provided
a
maximum
amount
of
compensation
of
Rs.5,00,000/-
under
Niyamavali, 2015 for after care and
rehabilitation. The petitioner no.1 further
claims
payment
of
compensation
of
Rs.5,26,000/- which she has incurred in her
treatment in Perfect Life Hospital, Mathura
and medical expenses incurred in Sawai
Maan
Singh
Hospital,
Jaipur.
The
respondents have objected to the payment
of aforesaid amount on the ground that the
petitioner has not complied the provisions
of Rule 12-ख of the U.P. Niyamavali, 2015
regarding referral by a medical officer of
government hospital to a private hospital
for
treatment. Apart
from
this,
the
respondents have objected to that petitioner
no. 2 being male child and getting injury by
less than 10% in the acid attack, is not
entitled
for
compensation
under
the
Niyamavali, 2015.

24. From the perusal of the record, it
transpires that in compliance of this Court's
order dated 14.11.2018, the petitioners had
submitted
the
bill
vouchers
of
Rs.5,26,000/- regarding medical expenses
incurred
by
them
to
the
District
Magistrate/Chief
Medical
Officer
for
verification and payment but the Chief
Medical Officer did not get the bill
vouchers verified and did not take steps for
payment thereof to the petitioners.

25. It has been well established from
the decisions of the Apex Court in the case
of Chameli Singh Vs. State of U.P., AIR
1996 SC 1051 and Consumer Education
and Research Centre Vs. Union of India,
(1995) 3 SCC 42 that medical grant is a
fundamental right under the sweep of
Article 21 which relates to Right to Life
and Personal Liberty of all persons living in
India.

26. Since, the petitioner no. 1 had
submitted her bill vouchers regarding
medical
expenses
incurred
in
her
treatment at private hospital to the
C.M.O./D.M., it was their responsibility
to get it verified and make payment
thereof. They kept the bill vouchers
with them for a long duration and
returned it back to her on the ground
that no payment can be made as the bill
vouchers were not verified and the
petitioners have not complied with Rule
12-ख of the U.P. Niyamavali, 2015.

27.

Under
these
facts
and
circumstances of the case and in the
light of the law propounded by the
Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, the
respondent nos. 1 and 2 are dutybound to make payment of the amount
of bill vouchers of Rs.5,26,000/- to
the
petitioners
which
they
have
incurred on their medical treatment of
acid attack burn injuries in the private
hospital.
396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

28. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 are
directed to pay the amount of Rs.5,26,000/-
to the petitioners in three instalments of
Rs.2,00,000/-,
Rs.2,00,000/-
and
Rs.1,26,000/-. The first instalment shall be
paid within a period of three months and
the second and third instalments shall be
paid within a period of two-two months
respectively.

29.

With
the
aforesaid
observations/directions, the writ petition is
allowed accordingly.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 396
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.01.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Writ C No. 19866 of 2023

Naromattie Devi Ganpat ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vishnu Pandey,, Sri Anil Kumar, Sri
Ayush Mittal, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, Sri
Prateek Srivastava, Sri Vikrant Pratap
Singh, Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, Sri Vipul
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Sanjay Kumar Om

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-The
Citizenship
Act,1955CitizenshiRules,2009-the
Petitioner
sought registration as an Overseas Citizen
of India based on her ancestry and marital
connection
to
an
Indian
citizen-The
petitioner claimed her great-grandparents
emigrated from Allahabad and Jaunpur,
India to Guyana in 1882 as indentured
laborers-She
submitted
apostilled
documents from National Archives of
Guyana to prove her ancestry but was
denied the OCI card cue to the nonavailability of a Native Certificate
from
the
district
magistrate,
a
requirement not specified in Indian
law-The court held that under the
Act, 1955 and Rules 2009, a Nativity
Certificate is not mandated for OCI
registration-India, being a signatory
to the Hague Apostille Convention,is
obligated
to
accept
apostilled
documents
as
legal
proof-The
petitioner's documents were deemed
sufficient-the
court
held
that
territorial
jurisdiction
as
the
petitioner's
ancestors
were
from
uttar Pradesh.(Para 1 to 50)

The writ petition is allowed. .( E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. Commr.of Customs Bangalore Vs M/S G.M.
Exports & ors..(2015) SCC OnLine SC 837

2. Lakshmi Kant Pandey Vs U.O.I. & ors..(2010)
12 SCC 735

3. Dr. Sanjay Khanduja Vs PNB & anr.(2021)
SCC OnLine Del 3209

4. Addul Manaf Vs St.of Ker.(2015) SCC OnLine
Ker 29460

5. Hansjurgen Gunther Koch Vs The St. 1 SA 13
of 2005 (2006) NASC 6

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vineet Kumar
Singh,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
and
Shri
S.P.
Singh,
learned Assistant Solicitor General
of India (ASGI) assisted by Sri
Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel
for
Union
of
India.