# UPPCL v. Sunita Verma & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1625
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-14
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 9547 of 2019
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/uppcl-v-sunita-verma-ors-53314
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law-The Constitution of India, 1950Article
227
-
The
Legal
Services
Authorities
Act,
1987-Section
22C---
Petition filed challenging the award whereby the
Permanent Lok Adalat has awarded a sum of
Rs.13,15,000/-.to the claimants--- The deceased
was a contractual worker, he would be deemed
to be on a fixed salary, thus, an addition of 40%
1626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the established income is to be added as the
deceased was less than 40 years of age which
makes the income of the deceased
as
Rs.9,800/- (income Rs.7,000/- plus 40%)---
Respondents would be further entitled to loss of
eSt. at Rs.16,500/- and funeral expenses at
Rs.16,500/---
Respondents
would
also
be
entitled
to
spousal
consortium,
parental
consortium and filial consortium at the rate of
Rs.40,000/- each in respect of all the six
claimants
in
Claim
Petition---
Petition
is
dismissed with direction to the petitioners/
corporation to pay the total amount of
compensation of Rs.23,78,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
date
of
claim
up
to
the
actual
payment/realization---A
further
cost
of
Rs.50,000/- is imposed upon the petitioners/
corporation for denying the poor person of the
legitimate compensation. (E-15)

List of the cases referred-:

## Text

5 All. UPPCL Vs. Sunita Verma & Ors.
1625
preliminary decree, which were not
within the control and knowledge of the
parties. The provision of Section 97 C.P.C.
or interpretation of the said provision by
Hon'ble Apex Court does not restrict the
power of the trial Court to amend the
preliminary decree in case it necessitates to
do justice between the parties.

22. In all the cases, referred above,
only the intervening event had taken place,
which was sought to be amended in the
preliminary decree, which the Court had
allowed and held that such intervening
event can be taken note of and preliminary
decree may be amended. The Court has
never restricted for any event which was
beyond the control of parties and also not
within its knowledge.

23.
In
the
instant
case,
the
registered endowment deed of 1969 was
not in the knowledge or possession of
either of the parties. The petitioner has not
raised any objection that it was well within
the knowledge of plaintiff-respondent and
he had deliberately concealed the said fact
when partition suit was filed.

24. Once there was no denial to the
fact that endowment deed of 1969 stands
and was not in possession of plaintiffrespondent, the amendment of preliminary
decree cannot be opposed. Had it been a
case where the plaintiff-respondent was in
possession of the endowment deed and had
deliberately withheld the same, then the
defendant-petitioner could have opposed
the amendment to the preliminary decree
and judgment relied upon by him would
have come to his rescue. It is also not
denied that a suit for eviction against the
occupier of endowed property has been
instituted on behalf of Deity in the year
2022. Once such is a position, the
defendant-petitioner cannot oppose the
amendment of a preliminary decree.

25. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, I find that no
interference is required in the order
impugned dated 16.02.2024 passed on
application Paper No.45-A2 and order
dated 11.03.2024 passed in Civil Revision
No.6 of 2024. Writ Petition No.4107 of
2024
 fails and is hereby dismissed.

26. As the Writ Petition No.4107 of
2024 has been dismissed, the connected
Writ Petition No.3458 of 2025 also stands
dismissed
as
the
application,
Paper
No.171C-2, moved by the petitioner has
been rejected and also the revision.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1625
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 9547 of 2019

UPPCL ...Petitioner
Versus
Sunita Verma & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vashu Deo Mishra, Abhinav Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Madhulika Yadav

Civil Law-The Constitution of India, 1950Article
227
-
The
Legal
Services
Authorities
Act,
1987-Section
22C---
Petition filed challenging the award whereby the
Permanent Lok Adalat has awarded a sum of
Rs.13,15,000/-.to the claimants--- The deceased
was a contractual worker, he would be deemed
to be on a fixed salary, thus, an addition of 40%
1626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the established income is to be added as the
deceased was less than 40 years of age which
makes the income of the deceased
as
Rs.9,800/- (income Rs.7,000/- plus 40%)---
Respondents would be further entitled to loss of
eSt. at Rs.16,500/- and funeral expenses at
Rs.16,500/---
Respondents
would
also
be
entitled
to
spousal
consortium,
parental
consortium and filial consortium at the rate of
Rs.40,000/- each in respect of all the six
claimants
in
Claim
Petition---
Petition
is
dismissed with direction to the petitioners/
corporation to pay the total amount of
compensation of Rs.23,78,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
date
of
claim
up
to
the
actual
payment/realization---A
further
cost
of
Rs.50,000/- is imposed upon the petitioners/
corporation for denying the poor person of the
legitimate compensation. (E-15)

List of the cases referred-:

1. St. of Haryana Vs Jasbir Kaur; (2003) 7 SCC
484

2. Canara Bank Vs G.S. Jayarama; (2022) 7 SCC 776

3. Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs
Smt.
Alka
Pandey;
Neutral
Citation
No.2024:AHC-LKO:14527

4. Magma General Insurance Co. Limited Vs
Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & ors.; (2018) 18
SCC 130

5. National Insurance Co. Limited Vs Pranay
Sethi & ors.; (2017) 16 SCC 680

6. Yas Pal Singh (Minor) & anr. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.; 2017 (5) ADJ 696

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard Shri Abhinav Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Ms.
Madhulika Yadav, learned counsel for the
respondents.

2. This is a very sad case in which a
public utility service has approached this
Court and is arguing in a manner which
does not bear well for the public welfare
for which the petitioner was established.

3. Present petition has been filed
challenging the award dated 11.10.2018
whereby the Permanent Lok Adalat has
awarded a sum of Rs.13,15,000/-.

4. The respondents herein who are
the claimants had moved an application
alleging that the husband of respondent no.1
was working as a contractual employee with
the corporation (petitioners herein) and died
while repairing a transformer. It was stated
that the husband was working at the time of
his death and was aged about 35 years and
was drawing a remuneration of Rs.7,000/- per
month, thus, it was claimed that the
respondents/ corporation should be directed
to pay the amount of compensation. It was
also stated that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
has been paid on account of death of the
husband of claimant.

5. The respondents/corporation filed
their written statement which is on record
wherein they admitted that the husband of the
claimant was working as a contractual worker
with the corporation. It was also admitted that
he died on account of an accident while at
work. It was also admitted that the
respondents
herein
are
the
claimants,
however, the amount claimed was denied on
the ground that an interim compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid through cheque.

6. With regard to jurisdiction, no
reply was given as is evident from Para 6 of
the written statement. It was also stated in
Para 8 that all the claims made were not
legally tenable.

7. The Permanent Lok Adalat
recorded that after filing the written
5 All. UPPCL Vs. Sunita Verma & Ors.
1627
statement, the respondents/corporation did
not appear. It was further recorded that
from the order dated 26.04.2018 passed by
the Permanent Lok Adalat, it was clear that
the respondents had failed to appear for
conciliation and no reasons were specified
for non-appearance and thereafter, it was
recorded that on 06.05.2018, counsel for
the
respondents
appeared
in
whose
presence the points of determination were
framed and thereafter on six dates, no one
appeared for the respondents. Thereafter,
the Permanent Lok Adalat recorded the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur; (2003) 7
SCC 484 wherein it was held that it is the
duty of the Court and the Tribunal to award
'just
and
reasonable'
compensation.
Thereafter, the Permanent Lok Adalat
admitting all the facts, which were not
denied, to be correct proceeded to calculate
the compensation taking into consideration
the amount of monthly remuneration paid
to the husband of the claimant at the rate of
Rs.7,000/- per month total Rs.84,000/- per
annum out of which 1/3rd was deducted on
account of personal expenses and the
dependency was assessed at Rs.56,000/- i.e.
2/3rd of the amount of remuneration paid to
the husband of the claimant. As the age of
the deceased at the time of death was 35
years, the compensation was awarded by
multiplying
Rs.56,000/-
(assessed
as
dependency) with 25 i.e. the age of
retirement.
In
addition
thereto,
the
Permanent Lok Adalat awarded an amount
of
Rs.5,000/-
towards
loss
of
companionship, another Rs.5,000/- towards
the funeral expenses and other Rs.5,000/-
towards the cost of litigation, thus, the total
amount payable
by
the
respondents/
corporation was assessed at Rs.14,15,000/-
As the respondents/ corporation had
already paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-,
the total amount awarded against the
respondents/
corporation
was
Rs.13,15,000/- which was directed to be
paid alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per
annum from the date of the judgment up to
actual payment/realization.

8. First contention of learned
counsel for the petitioners/corporation is
that in terms of the mandate of Section 22C
of The Legal Services Authorities Act, the
Permanent Lok Adalat could not have
passed an award as has been done. Reliance
is placed upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank
v. G.S. Jayarama; (2022) 7 SCC 776 with
emphasis on Paragraphs 36 & 37, which
are quoted herein below:

"36. The appellant's argument,
however, is that if the opposite party does
not appear before the Permanent Lok
Adalat, it can dispense with the conciliation
proceedings and straightaway adjudicate
the dispute under Section 22-C(8). We are
unable to accept this submission. Even if
the opposite party does not appear, the
Permanent Lok Adalat is still bound to
follow the step-by-step procedure laid
down by Section 22-C. Under Section 22C(3), it would require the party before it to
file their submissions and documents, and
make the best efforts to communicate them
to the opposite party for their response. If it
is satisfied that no response is forthcoming
from the absent opposite party, the
Permanent Lok Adalat shall still attempt to
settle the dispute through settlement under
Section
22-C(4).
It
is
important
to
remember that Section 22-C(5) imposes a
duty upon the Permanent Lok Adalat to be
independent and impartial in attempting to
amicably settle the dispute, while Section
22-C(6) imposes a duty upon the party
present before the Permanent Lok Adalat to
cooperate in good faith and assist the
1628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Permanent Lok Adalat. Thereafter, the
Permanent Lok Adalat, based on the
materials before it, shall propose terms of
settlement and communicate them to both
parties,
regardless
of
whether
they
participated in the proceedings. If the party
present before the Permanent Lok Adalat
does not agree or if the absent party does
not respond in a sufficient period of time,
only then can the Permanent Lok Adalat
adjudicate the dispute on its merits under
Section 22-C(8). Keeping in mind the
principles enshrined in Section 22-D, the
Permanent Lok Adalat shall once again
notify the absent party of its decision to
adjudicate the dispute on its merits, in case
it wishes to join the proceedings at that
stage.

37. Section 22-C(8) is amply
clear that it only comes into effect once an
agreement under Section 22-C(7) has
failed. The corollary of this is that the
proposed terms of settlement under Section
22-C(7), and the conciliation proceedings
preceding it, are mandatory. If Permanent
Lok Adalats are allowed to bypass this step
just because a party is absent, it would be
tantamount to deciding disputes on their
merit ex parte and issuing awards which
will be final, binding and will be deemed to
be decrees of civil courts. This was simply
not the intention of Parliament when it
introduced the LSA Amendment Act. Its
main goal was still the conciliation and
settlement of disputes in relation to public
utilities, with a decision on merits always
being the last resort. Therefore, we hold
that conciliation proceedings under Section
22-C of the LSA Act are mandatory in
nature."

9. Reliance is also placed upon the
judgment in the case of Madhyanchal
Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Smt. Alka
Pandey; Neutral Citation No.2024:AHCLKO:14527, which essentially follows the
judgment in the case of Canara Bank
(supra).

10.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents, on the other hand, argues that
the amount awarded is based upon the
compensation that was paid by the
petitioners. There is no iota of pleading in
the entire writ petition that the amount paid
to the deceased at the time of his death was
either wrongly awarded or in excess of
what was actually paid to him. She further
argues that in view of the law laid down in
the case of National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors.; (2017)
16 SCC 680 and in the case of Magma
General Insurance Company Limited v.
Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and
Others; (2018) 18 SCC 130, it is fairly well
settled that even if no claim is made, it is
the duty of the Court and the Tribunal to
ensure
that
a
just
and
reasonable
compensation is paid.

11. She further argues that the
amount of Rs.5,000/- paid towards loss of
consortium, funeral expenses and cost of
litigation is meagre and prays that this may
be enhanced by this Court as may be
deemed fit. It is further argued that the
stand taken by the petitioners is against the
spirit for which the Legal Services
Authorities Act was framed. It is further
argued that the petitioners after having put
in appearance, showed scant regard even in
respect of an employee who had died in an
accident while repairing transformer and
only a meagre amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was
paid. It is further argued that on account of
death of the bread earner, the entire family
of the respondents have badly suffered and
no amounts have been paid by the
petitioners despite the award being passed
in the year 2018.
5 All. UPPCL Vs. Sunita Verma & Ors.
1629
12. Considering the submissions
made at the Bar and recorded above, this
Court has no hesitation in holding that the
petitioners
have
been
absolutely
unreasonable in not understanding the
concept of the mandate of a beneficial
piece of legislation. On the one hand, the
petitioners have admitted everything in
their written statement as recorded above,
on the other hand, counsel for the
petitioners, has raised all the matters in the
writ petition without there being any
ground in the written statement. This
conduct of the petitioners deserves to be
deprecated and is accordingly deprecated in
strongest possible terms.

13. Considering the submissions as
made by learned counsel for the petitioners,
in the judgment in the case of Canara
Bank (supra), the Supreme Court has
observed that the first effort of the
Permanent Lok Adalat should be to ensure
conciliation even if no written statement is
filed and thereafter, the powers under
Section 22C(1) of The Legal Services
Authorities Act can be exercised. It is no
doubt true that the effort has to be made for
conciliation first, however, in view of the
stand taken in the written statement where
almost everything was admitted, the only
conciliation part was the quantum.

14. Considering the fact that the
Permanent Lok Adalat has awarded a
compensation and the petition has been
filed challenging the said compensation, I
do not see any reason to interfere with the
said award.

15. Now, coming to the issue of
quantum awarded by the Permanent Lok
Adalat, it is fairly well settled in a catena of
decisions that it is incumbent upon the
Tribunals and the Courts to ensure that 'just
compensation' is awarded irrespective of
whether the same is claimed or not.
Reference may be made to the case of Yas
Pal Singh (Minor) and Anr. v. State of
U.P. and Ors.; 2017 (5) ADJ 696, Pranay
Sethi (supra), as well as in Magma
General Insurance Company Limited
(supra) wherein the Supreme Court has
observed as under:

"21. A Constitution Bench of this
Court in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC
680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2
SCC (Cri) 205] dealt with the various
heads under which compensation is to be
awarded in a death case. One of these
heads is loss of consortium. In legal
parlance, "consortium" is a compendious
term
which
encompasses
"spousal
consortium", "parental consortium", and
"filial
consortium".
The
right
to
consortium would include the company,
care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and
affection of the deceased, which is a loss to
his family. With respect to a spouse, it
would include sexual relations with the
deceased spouse: [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh,
(2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179
: (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC
(L&S) 149]

21.1.
Spousal
consortium
is
generally defined as rights pertaining to
the relationship of a husband-wife which
allows compensation to the surviving
spouse for loss of "company, society,
cooperation, affection, and aid of the other
in every conjugal relation". [Black's Law
Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).]

21.2. Parental consortium is
granted to the child upon the premature
death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline,
guidance and training".
1630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21.3. Filial consortium is the
right of the parents to compensation in the
case of an accidental death of a child. An
accident leading to the death of a child
causes great shock and agony to the
parents and family of the deceased. The
greatest agony for a parent is to lose their
child during their lifetime. Children are
valued
for
their
love,
affection,
companionship and their role in the family
unit."

16. In the light of the said
judgment, this Court is to determine as to
what would be the 'just compensation'.
Admittedly, the petitioner was working as a
contractual
labour
with
the
petitioners/corporation and was drawing a
salary of Rs.7,000/- per month. In Pranay
Sethi's case (supra), the following has
been observed:

"59. In view of the aforesaid
analysis, we proceed to record our
conclusions:

59.1. The two-Judge Bench in
Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 :
(2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC
(Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167]
should have been well advised to refer the
matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a
different view than what has been stated in
Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009)
6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 :
(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002], a judgment by a
coordinate
Bench.
It
is
because
a
coordinate Bench of the same strength
cannot take a contrary view than what has
been held by another coordinate Bench.

59.2. As Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir
Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC
(Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 :
(2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] has not taken
note of the decision in Reshma Kumari
[Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013)
9 SCC 65 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191 :
(2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826] , which was
delivered at earlier point of time, the
decision in Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh,
(2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179
: (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC
(L&S) 149] is not a binding precedent.

59.3.
While
determining
the
income, an addition of 50% of actual
salary to the income of the deceased
towards
future
prospects,
where
the
deceased had a permanent job and was
below the age of 40 years, should be made.
The addition should be 30%, if the age of
the deceased was between 40 to 50 years.
In case the deceased was between the age
of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be
15%. Actual salary should be read as
actual salary less tax.

59.4. In case the deceased was
self-employed or on a fixed salary, an
addition of 40% of the established income
should be the warrant where the deceased
was below the age of 40 years. An addition
of 25% where the deceased was between
the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where
the deceased was between the age of 50 to
60 years should be regarded as the
necessary method of computation. The
established income means the income
minus the tax component.

59.5. For determination of the
multiplicand, the deduction for personal
and living expenses, the tribunals and the
courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of
Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009)
6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 :
(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] which we have
reproduced hereinbefore.

59.6. The selection of multiplier
shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla
Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC
121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2
5 All. UPPCL Vs. Sunita Verma & Ors.
1631
SCC (Cri) 1002] read with para 42 of that
judgment.

59.7. The age of the deceased
should be the basis for applying the
multiplier.

59.8.
Reasonable
figures
on
conventional heads, namely, loss of estate,
loss of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs
15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts
should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in
every three years."

17. In the light of the said, as the
deceased was a contractual worker, he
would be deemed to be on a fixed salary,
thus, an addition of 40% of the established
income is to be added as the deceased was
less than 40 years of age which makes the
income of the deceased as Rs.9,800/-
(income Rs.7,000/- plus 40%).

18. The respondents would be
further entitled to loss of estate at
Rs.16,500/-
and
funeral
expenses
at
Rs.16,500/-.

19. Further, in the light of the
judgment in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited (supra), the
respondents would also be entitled to
spousal consortium, parental consortium
and filial consortium at the rate of
Rs.40,000/- each in respect of all the six
claimants in Claim Petition No.46 of 2017.

20. In the light of the abovementioned
discussion,
the
total
compensation as computed, which the
respondents are entitled to, are as under:

Sl.No. Head
Compensation
awarded
1.
Monthly
income of the
Rs.7,000/- per
month
deceased
2.
Adding 40% in
the
light
of
judgment
in
Pranay Sethi's
case (supra)
Rs.7,000/-
+
Rs.2,800/-
=
Rs.9,800/- per
month
3.
Net
yearly
income
Rs.1,17,600/-
4.
Deducting 1/4th
towards
personal
expenses
Rs.1,17,600
x
25%
=
Rs.29,400/-
After
deduction :
Rs.1,17,600
-
Rs.29,400
=
Rs.88,200/-
5.
Applying
multiplier
of
'25' at the age
as applied by
the
Permanent
Lok Adalat
Rs.88,200 x 25
=
Rs.22,05,000/-
6.
Amount under
the
conventional
heads:
(i) loss of estate
Rs.16,500/-,
(ii)
Funeral
expenses
Rs.16,500/-
as
per
Pranay
Sethi's
case
(supra)
(iii)
loss
of
consortium
Rs.40,000/-
(each
of
the
dependents);
Rs.40,000/- x 6
= Rs.2,40,000/-.
Rs.16,500/-
+Rs.16,500/-
+Rs.2,40,000/-
= Rs.2,73,000/-
7.
Total amount
of
compensation
(Sr. No.5 + Sr.
Rs.22,05,000
+ Rs. 2,73,000
=
Rs.24,78,000/-
1632 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No.6)
8.
Amount already
paid
as
compensation
Rs.1,00,000/-

Total amount
of
compensation
payable to the
respondents
(Sr.No.7 - Sr.
No.8)
Rs.24,78,100/-
- Rs. 1,00,000/-
=
Rs.23,78,000/-

21. In view thereof, present petition
is
dismissed
with
direction
to
the
petitioners/corporation to pay the total
amount of compensation of Rs.23,78,000/-
alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of claim up to the
actual payment/realization.

22. A further cost of Rs.50,000/- is
imposed upon the petitioners/corporation
for denying the poor person of the
legitimate compensation.

23.
The
petitioners/corporation
shall deposit the aforesaid amount awarded
alongwith cost within a period of three
months from today before the Permanent
Lok Adalat which shall be paid to the
claimants by the Permanent Lok Adalat in
accordance with law.

24. Let a copy of this order be sent
to the Chairman of the petitioners/
corporation to ensure that this kind of
frivolous litigation is not filed in the future.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1632
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Application U/S 529 BNSS No. 285 of 2025

Sudha Shukla ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Brij Bhushan Prasad Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law-The Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973-Sections 483 & 145-
(The
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha
Sanhita,2023-Section 529--- The High
Court
is
empowered
to
exercise
its
superintendence over the Court of Judicial
Magistrates subordinate to it to ensure the
expeditious and proper disposal of the
cases by such Magistrate but when an order
is passed by an Executive Magistrate or any
direction is required to be issued for
expeditious and proper disposal of a case
which is pending before the Executive
Magistrate, the High Court can't exercise its
superintendence
over
the
courts
of
Executive Magistrates--- The High Court
under Sec. 529 BNSS(Section 483 Cr.P.C.) is
not required to make any superintendence
over the working of a Executive Magistrate
and no direction under Section 483 Cr.P.C.
(Section 529 of BNSS) can be issued to the
Executive Magistrates where a case under
Section 145 Cr.P.C. is pending before it as
prescribed in Section 483 Cr.P.C.(Section
529 of BNSS).

Application rejected. (E-15)

List of the cases referred-:

1.
Dutch
Opthalmic
Research
Centre
International B.VS Vs Ultramad Pvt. Ltd. & ors.
1997 SCC Online Raj 941

2. Sarjoo & anr. Vs Babadin & anr.1975 CRLJ
1562 (Allahabad)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Nalin Kumar
Srivastava, J.)