Dismissed

Kunti Devi and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Oct 2018WRIC/35254/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of compensation claims for crop loss due to a fire caused by a short circuit in an electricity line. The High Court held that the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 are not applicable as the loss was not caused by any licensee's work.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners not entitled to compensation under Works of Licensees Rules, 2006; writ petition dismissed.

Kunti Devi and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35254 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Kunti Devi And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shrawan Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

By this petition for writ an appropriate writ, order or direction is sought for respondent no. 2- District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar to disburse the compensation in favour of the petitioners for loss caused due to fire of crops. The compensation is claimed under Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 2006").

¶6

From perusal of the facts, it reveals that due to short circuit occurred in the electricity line passing through the fields of the petitioners a fire took place on 10th April, 2017 causing loss to the petitioners. The claim made by the petitioners to have compensation was denied by the state authorities thus a petition for writ was filed that came to be disposed of on 29th August, 2017. In the petition referred above, a direction was given to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners sympathetically and within the period stipulated. Alleging non-compliance of the direction aforesaid, a contempt petition was filed but that was dismissed by the Court arriving at the conclusion that the insurance scheme in which claim was made is not applicable to the petitioners. The petitioners then raised their claim as per provisions of the Rules of 2006. The claim made by the petitioners too was rejected, hence this petition is before us.

¶7

On going through the Rules of 2006, we are of considered opinion that the same are having no application in the instant matter. The rules aforesaid are applicable for the licensees to carry out works under the Electricity Act, 2003. As per Section 3 of the Act aforesaid while carrying out any work pertaining to laying down electricity supply or other works if any loss is caused to a land owner then he is to be compensated by the licensee for the purpose aforesaid and application is required to be moved before the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or the officers so authorized by the appropriate Government.

¶8

In the case in hand, no loss was caused to the petitioners by any licensee but because of a short circuit in the electricity supply light passing through the fields of the petitioners. In view of it, the scheme of the petitioners under the Rules of 2006 is absolutely ill-founded. No relief prayed for thus can be given.

¶9

The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners, however, are at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy to have necessary compensation if permissible.

¶10

Order Date :- 24.10.2018 Rameez

¶11

(Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) (Govind Mathur, A.C.J.)

Kunti Devi and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunti Devi and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

satendra kumar dubey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Sarita Rani and 7 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Himanshu Shukla and Anr. Vs State of U.P.and 3ORS

Ramdhani Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nathuram Rajpoot and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others