# U.P.S.R.T.C v. Smt. Nirmala Kanaujia @ Nirmala Devi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 868
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-17
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 3263 of 2014
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-s-r-t-c-v-smt-nirmala-kanaujia-nirmala-devi-ors-49164
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections - 168 & 173 - UP Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1998 - Rule 220-A(3)(iii): - Appeals -
against same accident & award - claimants'
seeks enhancement of Award & Corp. assailed
award
on
two
grounds
i.e.
contributory
negligence and incorrect multiplier applied by
tribunal - appreciation of evidence - deceased
died due to sustained injuries in accident -
accident caused by the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of a bus of UPSRTC when
bus collided with the motorcycle of deceased -
court finds that - a head on collision does not
ipso facto mean that it is a case of contributory
negligence - on appraisal of evidence on record
court held that, finding of tribunal on the issue
of contributory negligence are upheld - And -
since the age of deceased was 36 as such in
place of 16 multiplier would be 15 as per
holdings in Sarla Verma's & Pranay Sethi's
judgments - directions accordingly.
(Para - 14, 15)

(B) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections - 168 & 173 - UP Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1998- Rule 220-A(3)(iii): - Appeals -
against same accident & award - claimants'
seeks enhancement of Award & Corp. assailed
award
on
two
grounds
i.e.
contributory
negligence and incorrect multiplier applied by
tribunal
-
quantum
of
Compensation
-
appreciation of evidence - learned tribunal not
determined the compensation lawfully while
computing the amounts under the heads of
Salary, future prospects, deduction & Calculation
towards personal expenses & conventional
heads including multiplier - hence, in the light of
1 All. U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kanaujia @ Nirmala Devi & Ors.
869
judgment of Hon'ble Apex court rendered in
case of Pranay Sethi's, Urmilla Shukla's, Sarla
Verma's, both Appeal is partly allowed and
impugned award is modified & enhanced from
Rs. 32,13,720/- to Rs. 58,24,375/- along with
7% interest - directions issued accordingly.
(Para - 16, 17, 22, 23, 26, 28, 29, 30)

Both Appeals are partly allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

868 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
evidence in the record. 7% interest will
serve the ends of justice.

39. In wake of the preceding
discussion, the amount of compensation to
which the claimant is entitled and is hereby
awarded, is tabulated hereunder:

Sr.
No.
Heads
Entitled Amount (in
Rupees)
1.
Treatment
30,000/-
2.
Transportation
35,000/-
3.
Loss of earning for
two months
50,000/-
4.
Future Medical
Expenses including
purchases of devices
150,000/-
5.
Pain and Suffering
loss of amenities
150,000/-
6.
Special Diet
30,000/-
7.
Misc. Expenditure
50,000/-
8.
Attendant Charges
2200/- per month
9.
Future
enhancement of
attendant charges
10%
10.
Total attendant
charges (annual)
29,040/-
11.
Multiplier
14 x 29,040 =
406,560/-
12.
Total compensation
901,560/-
13.
Interest
7%

40. The amount of compensation
awarded to the deceased shall be deposited by
the respondent-UPSRTC within three months
before the learned tribunal. Thereafter the
learned tribunal shall release the amount to
the injured-claimant without delay. The
amount already disbursed to the injuredclaimant (if any) shall be duly adjusted.

41. The appeal is allowed to the
extent above.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 868
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.
First Appeal From Order No. 3263 of 2014
With
First Appeal From Order No. 2556 of 2014

U.P.S.R.T.C. ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Nirmala Kanaujia @ Nirmala Devi &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri S.K. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mrs. Deepali Srivastava, Sri Amit K. Sinha

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections - 168 & 173 - UP Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1998 - Rule 220-A(3)(iii): - Appeals -
against same accident & award - claimants'
seeks enhancement of Award & Corp. assailed
award
on
two
grounds
i.e.
contributory
negligence and incorrect multiplier applied by
tribunal - appreciation of evidence - deceased
died due to sustained injuries in accident -
accident caused by the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of a bus of UPSRTC when
bus collided with the motorcycle of deceased -
court finds that - a head on collision does not
ipso facto mean that it is a case of contributory
negligence - on appraisal of evidence on record
court held that, finding of tribunal on the issue
of contributory negligence are upheld - And -
since the age of deceased was 36 as such in
place of 16 multiplier would be 15 as per
holdings in Sarla Verma's & Pranay Sethi's
judgments - directions accordingly.
(Para - 14, 15)

(B) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Sections - 168 & 173 - UP Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1998- Rule 220-A(3)(iii): - Appeals -
against same accident & award - claimants'
seeks enhancement of Award & Corp. assailed
award
on
two
grounds
i.e.
contributory
negligence and incorrect multiplier applied by
tribunal
-
quantum
of
Compensation
-
appreciation of evidence - learned tribunal not
determined the compensation lawfully while
computing the amounts under the heads of
Salary, future prospects, deduction & Calculation
towards personal expenses & conventional
heads including multiplier - hence, in the light of
1 All. U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kanaujia @ Nirmala Devi & Ors.
869
judgment of Hon'ble Apex court rendered in
case of Pranay Sethi's, Urmilla Shukla's, Sarla
Verma's, both Appeal is partly allowed and
impugned award is modified & enhanced from
Rs. 32,13,720/- to Rs. 58,24,375/- along with
7% interest - directions issued accordingly.
(Para - 16, 17, 22, 23, 26, 28, 29, 30)

Both Appeals are partly allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors., (2017 (16) SCC 680),

2. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Urmilla
Shukla & ors. (2021 SSC Online SC 822),

3. Smt. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs Delhi Transport
Corp. & anr. (2009 (6) SCC 121),

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

I. INTRODUCTION:

1. These two appeals arise out of the
same accident and an award made by the
learned
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court
No.8,
Allahabad
on
31.05.2014,
in
M.A.C.P. No. 770 of 2011 (Smt. Nirmala
Kanaujia @ Nirmala Devi and others Vs
U.P.S.R.T.C.).

II. Case of the claimants and
respondents before the learned tribunal:

2. Briefly the case of the claimants
before the learned tribunal was that the
deceased died of injuries sustained in an
accident which occurred on 04.06.2011,
and was caused by the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the UPSRTC Bus
No. UP 70 AT 6658. The deceased was
driving a motorcycle on the G.T. Road,
Hatwa Crossing, Kaushambi when the
offending bus collided with the motorcyle.
The deceased was 36 years of age the time
of the accident. The claimants were
dependant on the deceased. The UPSRTC
resisted the claim by filing a written
statement. Both parties adduced evidence
in the trial.

III. Compensation awarded by the
learned tribunal:

3. The learned tribunal in the
impugned judgement dated 21.05.2014
awarded compensation which is depicted in
the tabulated form hereunder:

Sr.
No.
Heads
Amount
Awarded
by the tribunal
1.
Monthly Income (A)
24,990/-
2.
Annual Income (B)
(Ax12=B)
2,99,880/-
3.
Future Prospects (C)
Nil
4.
Annual
Income
+
Future Prospects
(B+C=D)
2,99,880+Nil
=2,99,880/
5.
Deduction
towards
personal expenses (E)
(1/3 of D)
1/3
of
2,99,880/-
=99,960/-
6.
Annual
Loss
of
Dependancy (F)
(D-E =F)
2,99,880-99,960/-
= 1,99,920/-
7.
Multiplier (G)
16
8.
Total
loss
of
dependancy
(F x G)
1,99,920 x 16
= 31,98,720/-
9.
Loss
of
love
&
Affection
5000/-
10.
Loss of Estate
5,000/-
11.
Funeral
5000/-
12.
Deduction
towards
Contributory
negligence
Nil
13.
Total compensation
31,98,720 + 15,000
= 32,13,720/-
14.
Interest
7%

4.

FAFO
No.3263
of
2014
(U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Smt. Nirmala Kanaujia @
Nirmala Devi and Others) has been filed by
UPSRTC challenging the award dated
31.5.2014 passed by the Tribunal. FAFO
No.2556 of 2014 (Smt. Nirmala Kanaujia
Alias
Nirmala
Devi
and
Others
U.P.S.R.T.C.) has been preferred by the
870 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
claimants
for
enhancement
of
compensation.

Arguments of learned counsels:

5. Various grounds have been taken in the
appeal by the UPSRTC. However, Shri S.K.
Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant on
behalf of appellant - UPSRTC (in FAFA
No.3263 of 2014) only presses two grounds
against the impugned award. Firstly, it was a
case of contributory negligence, and the learned
Tribunal erred in law fixing the entire liability
on the appellant. Secondly, incorrect multiplier
has been applied in the impugned award.

6. Per contra, in the appeal for
enhancement (FAFO No.2556 of 2014),
Mrs.Deepali Srivastava, learned counsel for the
claimants-appellants contends that this was not
a case of contributory negligence. Calling
attention to various fault lines in the impugned
award, learned counsel for the claimantsappellants contends that deduction towards
personal
expenses
was
excessive
and
unsustainable in law, future prospects were
unlawfully
denied
and
impermissible
deductions were made by the learned Tribunal
in the salary of the deceased. Lastly, the
amounts granted under conventional heads
were contrary to the law laid down by the Apex
Court in National Insurance Company Ltd.
vs. Pranay Sethi and others.

IV. Issues for Consideration:

7. After advancing their arguments,
learned counsels for the respective parties agree
that only the following questions fall for
consideration in these appeals:-

A. Whether the accident resulted
from contributory negligence on part of the
deceased motorcycle driver?

B. Whether while determining the
compensation the learned tribunal had
lawfully computed the amounts under
various heads salary, future prospects,
multiplier, conventional heads, deduction
towards personal expenses?

C. What is the compensation to
which the claimants are lawfully entitled?

IV
A.
Issue
of
contributory
negligence:

8. The claimants introduced two
witnesses namely PW-1 Smt. Nirmala Devi
(wife of the deceased) and PW-2 - Pradeep
Kumar the person who was driving the illfated motor cycle witness to establish the
factum of the accident and the negligence
of the driver of the offending UPSRTC bus.

9. P.W. 1 Nirmala Devi testified
before the learned tribunal that she had
witnessed the accident. On the fateful day,
she was riding pillion on the motorcycle
being driven by her deceased husband. As
they reached Mallahapur (Hatwa Road) a
UP Roadways bus which was over
speeding and being driven negligently on
the wrong side of the road collided with the
motorcycle. The deceased sustained mortal
injuries in the accident, and P.W. 1 also
suffered injuries. The motorcycle driver
(deceased husband) was driving on the
right side at a slow speed. There was no
traffic ahead of the motorcycle on the road.

10. P. W. 2 Pradeep Kumar also
testified that he was an eye witness to the
accident, who saw the deceased driving a
motorcycle with his wife riding pillion. The
UP Roadways bus was being driven on the
wrong side at an uncontrollable speed. The
driving of the offending bus resulted in a
collision
with
the
motorcycle.
The
1 All. U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kanaujia @ Nirmala Devi & Ors.
871
deceased died of injuries and his wife was
injured grievously in the accident.

11. The testimonies of the aforesaid
P.W. 1 and PW 2 were not shaken under
cross examination. The learned tribunal
which had the benefit of observing the
demeanour of the witnesses upheld the credit
of
the
witnesses
and
believed
their
testimonies.

12. The driver of the UPSRTC bus in
deposition before the learned Trial Court
denied his negligence. According to his
testimony, the accident occurred, when the
motorcycle collided with the rear side of the
bus. The credit of DW-1 Ram, (driver of the
offending bus) who had testified before the
learned tribunal, was impeached under cross
examination. His testimony was disbelieved
by the learned tribunal.

13. The learned tribunal found that the
accident was caused by negligent driving of
the offending bus on the wrong side of the
road.

14. A head on collision does not ipso
facto mean that it is a case of contributory
negligence. Contributory negligence occurs
and when both the parties drive negligently,
flout traffic rules, or fail to observe norms of
safe driving. Contributory negligence implies
that both parties are culpable for the accident.
In such cases, the courts have to assess the
responsibility of each party in causing the
accident, and apportion liability on the
respective parties accordingly.

15. The facts which are established by
pleadings and evidence in the record are
these. The norms of safe driving as well as
traffic rules were flouted only by the driver of
the UPSRTC bus. The driving of the
offending UPSRTC bus drove rashly on the
wrong side of the road. There was no fault of
the motorcycle driver in the mishap. The
deceased motorcycle driver drove prudently
on the right side while observing traffic rules
and norms of safe driving. He had no time or
opportunity to take measures to prevent the
accident or save himself due to the
overspeeding and negligent driving of the
offending bus driver. The accident occurred
entirely due to the fault of the driver of the
offending UPSRTC vehicle and UPSRTC is
solely liable to pay the compensation.

15.1. Appraisal of evidence by
the learned trial court and its consideration
of pleadings and material in the record is
impeccable. This Court is not persuaded to
take any other view. The findings of the
learned tribunal on this issue are upheld.

15.2. The issue of contributory
negligence is decided for the claimants &
against the UPSRTC.

IV C. Issue of computation of the
compensation under various heads:

a. Salary of the deceased:

16. The deceased was a Junior
Engineer in U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd.
The salary certificate issued by the
department and duly proved before the
learned tribunal records that the monthly
salary of the deceased was Rs. 29,205/-.
The
learned
Tribunal
made
an
impermissible deduction of Rs. 4,000/- in
the salary of the deceased. The only
deduction which was permissible in the
salary was towards income tax as per the
applicable rate.

b. Future Prospects:

17. The future prospects are liable to
be calculated in accordance with the Uttar
872 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 19982. Rule
220A-3(iii) of the Rules is relevant and is
reproduced hereunder:

"(3) The future prospects of a
deceased, shall be added in the actual
salary or minimum wages of the deceased
as under:

" (i) Below 40 years of age : 50%
of the salary."

18. The UP Rules, 1998 came up for
consideration before the Supreme Court in
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Urmila
Shukla and others. In Urmila Shukla
(supra) upon consideration of various
judgements including National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others held:

"10. The discussion on the point
in Pranay Sethi was from the standpoint of
arriving at "just compensation" in terms of
Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988.

11. If an indicia is made available
in the form of a statutory instrument which
affords a favourable treatment, the decision
in Pranay Sethi cannot be taken to have
limited the operation of such statutory
provision specially when the validity of the
Rules was not put under any challenge. The
prescription of 15% in cases where the
deceased was in the age bracket of 50-60
years as stated in Pranay Sethi cannot be
taken as maxima. In the absence of any
governing
principle
available
in
the
statutory regime, it was only in the form of
an indication. If a statutory instrument has
devised a formula which affords better or
greater benefit, such statutory instrument
must be allowed to operate unless the
statutory instrument is otherwise found to
be invalid."

 (emphasis supplied)

19. The Rules of the Uttar Pradesh
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 were not under
consideration before the Supreme Court in
Pranay Sethi (supra) or Sarla Verma
(Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport
Company and another. Future prospects
in Pranay Sethi (supra) were determined
without noticing the U.P. Rules,1998. This
fact was adverted to in Urmila Shukla
(supra):

"8. It is submitted by Mr. Rao
that the judgment in Pranay Sethi does not
show that the attention of the Court was
invited to the specific rules such as Rule
3(iii) which contemplates addition of 20%
of the salary as against 15% which was
stated as a measure in Pranay Sethi. In his
submission, since the statutory instrument
has been put in place which affords more
advantageous treatment, the decision in
Pranay Sethi ought not to be considered to
limit the application of such statutory
Rule."

20. The U.P. Rules,1998 are statutory
in nature and their operation is not stymied
by Pranay Sethi (supra). The U. P. Rules,
1998 have the force of law and shall apply
with full force in appropriate cases. The
U.P. Rules, 1998 are more beneficial for
the claimants than the provisions made in
Pranay Sethi (supra) for them. The holdings
in Pranay Sethi (supra) can not dilute the
advantages conferred by U.P. Rules, 1998
upon the eligible beneficiaries.

21. The argument that the UP Rules,
1998 encroach upon the judicial power of
the courts, and are in the teeth of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and hence beyond the
legislative competence of the State is not
liable to be entertained by this Court. The
vires of the UP Rules, 1998 is not in issue
in this appeal. Moreover, the UP Rules,
1 All. U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kanaujia @ Nirmala Devi & Ors.
873
1998 are a reliable guide in an enquiry
made by the court for assessing the just
compensation payable in the facts and
circumstances of a case.

22. In this wake, this Court finds that
the claimants/respondents are entitled to
50% enhancement in wages towards future
prospects.

b.
Deduction
towards
personal
expenses:

23.

The
deceased
had
four
dependants(parents, wife and two minor
children). The deduction of 1/3rd made
towards personal expenses made by the
learned tribunal was excessive. The amount
which is liable to be deduction towards
personal expenses of the deceased is 1/4th.

24. The discussion has the advantage
of authorities in point. While deciding the
issue of deduction of personal expenses, the
Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and
others Vs Delhi Transport Company and
another held:

"30. Though in some cases the
deduction to be made towards personal and
living expenses is calculated on the basis of
units indicated in Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4
SCC 362] , the general practice is to apply
standardised
deductions.
Having
considered several subsequent decisions of
this Court, we are of the view that where
the deceased was married, the deduction
towards personal and living expenses of the
deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd)
where the number of dependent family
members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where
the number of dependent family members
is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the
number of dependent family members
exceeds six."

25. Sarla Verma (supra) was later
followed
with
approval
in
National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others (See Pr. 37).

C. Issue of multiplier:

26. There is merit in the submission
of Sri S. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the
UPSRTC that an incorrect multiplier of 16
has been used by the learned tribunal. The
learned
counsels
for
the
claimantsrespondents fairly concedes the point. The
age of the victim was 36 years. The
applicable multiplier applicable as per the
holdings in Sarla Verma (supra) and
Pranay Sethi (supra) is 15.

27. The compensation has to be
recalculated by applying multiplier of 15.

d.
Calculation
of
Conventional
Heads:

28. The amount determined under
conventional heads in the impugned award
is at variance with Pranay Sethi (supra).
The claimants are entitled to the sum fixed
in Pranay Sethi (supra) which holds as
under:

"54. ......The conventional and
traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be
determined on percentage basis because
that would not be an acceptable criterion.
Unlike determination of income, the said
heads
have
to
be
quantified.
Any
quantification must have a reasonable
foundation. There can be no dispute over
the fact that price index, fall in bank
interest, escalation of rates in many a field
have to be noticed. The court cannot
remain oblivious to the same. There has
been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise,
there
will
be
extreme
difficulty
in
874 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
determination of the same and unless the
thumb rule is applied, there will be
immense variation lacking any kind of
consistency as a consequence of which, the
orders passed by the tribunals and courts
are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we
think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It
seems to us that reasonable figures on
conventional heads, namely, loss of estate,
loss of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- funeral
expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs.
40,000/- And Rs. 15,000/- respectively."

e. Interest:

29. Interest of 7% and the manner of
payment decided by the learned tribunal is
just and lawful and does not call for
interference.

IV
D.
Determination
of
Compensation
to
which
claimants-
respondents are entitled:

30. In wake of the preceding
discussion, the amount of compensation to
which the claimants are entitled and is
hereby awarded, is tabulated below:

i. Date of Accident
- 04.06.2011
ii. Name of Deceased
- Naresh
Kumar
iii.
Age
of
the
deceased
- 36 years
iv. Occupation of the
Deceased
- Junior
Engineer
v.
Income
of
the
deceased
- 29,205/-
p.m.

vi. Name, Age and Relationship
of Claimants with the deceased:

Sr. No.
Name
Age
Relation
1.
Smt. Nirmala
Kanaujia
35
Wife
2.
Nikhil Kumar
11
Son
3.
Km. Deeksha
9
Daughter
4.
Smt. Suraj Kali
60
Mother
5.
Munni Lal
65
Father

vii. Computation of Compensation

Sr.
No.
Heads
Amount
(in
Rupees)
1.
Monthly Income (A)
29,205/-
2.
Annual Income (B)
(A x 12 = B)
3,50,460/-
3.
Net Income Tax payable
9,460/-
4.
Yearly
income
of
deceased less tax
3,50,460 -9,460 =
3,41,000/-
5.
Future Prospects (C)
50% of 3,41,000/-
= 1,70,500/-
6.
Annual Income + Future
Prospects
(B+C=D)
3,41,000 + 1,70,500
= 5,11,500/-
7.
Deduction
towards
personal expenses (E) (1⁄4
of D)
1⁄4 of 5,11,500/-
= 1,27,875/-
8.
Annual
Loss
of
Dependancy (F)
(D-E = F)
5,11,500-1,27,875
= 3,83,625/-
9.
Multiplier (G)
15
10.
Total loss of dependancy
(F x G)
3,83,625 x 15
= 57,54,375/-
11.
Conventional Heads:
(a) Loss of consortium
(b) Loss of Estate
(c) Funeral Expenses
70,000/-
12.
Total compensation
58,24,375/-
13.
Interest
7%

V. Conclusions & Directions:

31. The amount of compensation to
which the deceased has been found entitled
shall be deposited by the Insurance Company
within three months before the learned
tribunal. Thereafter the learned tribunal shall
release the amount to the claimants without
delay. The amount already disbursed to the
claimants (if any) shall be duly adjusted.

32. The security deposited by the said
appellant in the wake of the order passed by
this Court shall be discharged.

33. Both the appeals are partly
allowed as above.
1 All. Vaibhav Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
875
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 875
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Public Interest Litigation No. 878 of 2022
Connected with
Writ C No. 8904 of 2022 and other cases

Vaibhav Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sharad Pathak, Piyush Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Anurag Kumar Singh

(A) Civil Law - U. P. Municipalities
Act,1916 - Sections 2(1), 7, 9(a) &
9(a)(5)(3), - U.P. Municipal Corps Act,
1959
-
Section
-
2(51-A),
7
-
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles
141,
144,
15(4),
16(4),
243(d),
243(d)(6),
243(t),
243(t)(1),
243(t)(2), 243(t)(6) & 243(u), - U. P.
St. Public Services Reservation for
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and Other Back-ward Classes Act,
1994 - Section 2(b): - Petitions in
Public interest - Nature and Purpose of
Reservation in Local Bodies - challenging
the notification issued by St. Govt. -
inviting objections - to the proposed
determination of numbers/seats of officers
of the Chairpersons of different Municipals
Bodies specially confined to providing
reservation to the Backward Class of
Citizens - St. raised takes plea that
petitions are premature at this stage -
provisions contained in different articles
of constitution of India, enabling St. to
make a provision for reservation of seats in
local bodies for SC, ST, women or OBC are
almost in pari material - court held that,
the
requirement
of
triple/conditions,
regarding (i) observation of ceiling of 50%
reservation provided to SC/ST/OBC & (ii)
constitution of a dedicated Commission to
conduct an empirical inquiry into the
nature and implications of backwardness in
relation to Local Bodies (iii) providing the
proportion of the reservation required in
the light of recommendation of such
commission, as directed and contemplated
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of K.
Krishna Murthy & Vikas Kishanrao Gawali,
are not full fill in this case - hence, the
impugned notification dated 05.12.2022 is
hereby
quashed
-
directions
issued,
accordingly
for
notify
the
elections
immediately and notification to be issued
for elections shall include the reservation
in terms of constitutional provision . (Para
- 8.33, 8.52-A, C)

(B) Civil Law - U. P. Municipalities Act,
1916 - Section 2(1), 7, 9(a) & 9(a)(5)(3),
- U.P. Municipal Corps Act, 1959 - Sections
- 2(51-A) & 7 - Constitution of India, 1950
- Articles 141, 144, 15(4), 16(4), 243(d),
243(d)(6), 243(t), 243(t)(1), 243(t)(2),
243(t)(6) & 243(u), - U. P. St. Public
Services
Reservation
for
Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes Act,1994 - Section - 2(b): -
Petitions in Public interest - Nature and Purpose
of Reservation in Local Bodies - challenging the
Government Order - whereby on expiry of the
term of various local bodies, the respective
District Magistrate of districts shall authorize
operation of bank accounts of such Local Bodies
under the joint signature of the Executive
Officer - in the light of directions & interim
arrangement made by the Division Bench of this
Court vide its judgment in case of Sandeep @
Sandeep Mehrotra's - the impugned Gov. order
dated 12.12.2022 is hereby quashed - directions
issued, accordingly that till the formation of
elected Body the affairs of such Municipal Body
shall
be
conducted
by
a
three-member
Committee headed by the DM concern, of which
the
Executive
Officer/Chief
Executive
officer/Municipal
Commissioner
shall
be
a
member. (Para - 8.51, 8.52-B, D)