# Smt. Manjita Devi & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2021) 3 ILRA 567 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2021-02-18 - **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 746 of 2020 - **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-manjita-devi-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46918 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote A. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226 & Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj(Reservation and Allotment of Seats and Offices) Rules, 1994 and Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats(Reservation and allotment of seats and offices) Rules,1994-challenge to-base year for reservation-opposite parties were ignoring the government order dated 16.09.2015 for the purpose of allotment of seats-they are proceeding to reserve the seats in terms of Rule 4 of 1994 by taking 1995 as the base year instead of 2015-Even, previous election were held in accordance with the G.O. 16.09.2015-In view of the Census 2001 ## Text 3 All. Smt. Manjita Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 567 viii. Amount towards filial consortium : Rs.50,000/- ix. Amount towards loss of estate : Rs.30,000/- x. Total compensation : 12,89,600/- 27. This takes us to the vexed question of grant of interest. The repo rate is declining day in day out. The Rule 220 (6) of Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules (11th Amendment), 2011 prescribes 7% rate of interest. We cannot grant interest less than 7% and, therefore, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.), we consider it just and proper to award 7.5% rate of interest. The interest has to be from the date of filing of the claim petition and we confirm the same. 28. No other grounds are urged orally when the matter was heard. 29. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. 30. The learned Registrar General is requested to circulate this judgment to the Tribunals so that proper multiplier be awarded by the Tribunals. ---------- (2021)03ILR A567 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.02.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 746 of 2020 Smt. Manjita Devi & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri R.B. Singh, Sri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, Sri Ajay Pandey, Sri Ghanshyam Yadav Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A., Sri Ajay Pandey Husband claims wife to be in illegal custody-wife stated to living on free will - matrimonial discord-Writ of habeas corpus-writ of right and not of courseW.P. dismissed. (E-7) Cases cited: 1. Mohammad Ikram Hussain Vs St. of U.P. & ors., AIR 1964 SC 1625 2. Kanu Sanyal Vs District Magistrate Darjeeling, (1973) 2 SCC 674 3. Soniya & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 283 of 2020, decided on 18.02.2021 (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard Sri Ghanshyam Yadav holding brief of Sri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ajay Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General appearing alongwith Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State-respondents. 2. Pursuant to the rule nisi issued earlier, the petitioner no. 1 is present in 568 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Court who has been identified by Sri Ajay Pandey, learned counsel. 3. Learned A.G.A.-I, on the basis of enquiry made from the petitioner no. 1, submits that she has stated that she is presently living with some of her relatives on account of a matrimonial discord. On a specific query, she has submitted that she is staying with her relatives on her own sweet will and without there being any threat or coercion. She has also stated that she does not wish to go back to her husband, i.e. petitioner no. 2, and that she desires to go back to her relatives from where she has come. 4. The writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative writ and an extraordinary remedy. It is writ of right and not a writ of course and may be granted only on reasonable ground or probable cause being shown, as held in Mohammad Ikram Hussain vs. State of U.P. and others1 and Kanu Sanyal vs. District Magistrate Darjeeling2. 5. The necessary jurisdictional fact to be established for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus would be dependent on the applicant establishing a prima facie case that the detention is unlawful. 6. In a recent decision of this Court in Soniya and another vs. State of U.P. and others3, this Court has held that the remedy of a writ of habeas corpus at the instance of a person seeking to obtain possession of someone whom he claims to be his wife would not be available as a matter of course and the power in this regard may be exercised only when a clear case is made out. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid, rule nisi issued earlier is not required to be made absolute. It is accordingly discharged. 8. The writ petition stands accordingly dismissed. 9. The petitioner no. 1 would be at liberty to go back to the place from where she has come or wherever she desires. 10. The amount deposited pursuant to the earlier order may be released to the petitioner no. 1 upon due verification. ---------- (2021)03ILR A568 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 15.03.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J. THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. P.I.L. Civil No. 6929 of 2021 Ajay Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mohd. Altaf Mansoor, Nitin Kapoor, Tanay Chaudhary Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Anurag Kumar Singh A. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226 & Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj(Reservation and Allotment of Seats and Offices) Rules, 1994 and Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats(Reservation and allotment of seats and offices) Rules,1994-challenge to-base year for reservation-opposite parties were ignoring the government order dated 16.09.2015 for the purpose of allotment of seats-they are proceeding to reserve the seats in terms of Rule 4 of 1994 by taking 1995 as the base year instead of 2015-Even, previous election were held in accordance with the G.O. 16.09.2015-In view of the Census 2001