Sant Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

Sant Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 17.02.2024 quashed and set aside; respondent authority directed to grant the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks; writ petition disposed of with these directions.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent authority acted improperly in rejecting the petitioner's claim under the Mukhymantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana solely on the ground of belated filing, without considering the petitioner's contentions regarding the reasons for the delay. +1 more

Court's answer

The scheme being beneficial legislation, the time period for making a claim has to be a reasonable one, and if sufficient cause is shown by the petitioner for the delay in filing the claim, the same is required to be considered in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not stayed the entire order passed by the High Court in Gautam Yadav, but only stayed the direction that claims filed within a period of three years from the date of the rejection should be treated as within limitation.

Key takeaways

Since the Supreme Court has stayed only the direction extending the limitation period to three years, each case will have to be examined on its own facts and circumstances to determine whether there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the claim.ratio¶24
The respondent did not consider the petitioner's contentions with regard to the reasons for the delay in filing the application and simpliciter passed the rejection order on the basis that the claim was filed belatedly.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 challenging the rejection (order dated 17.02.2024, respondent No.2) of the petitioner's claim under the Mukhymantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana on the ground of belated filing. Held: the scheme being beneficial legislation, the time for making a claim must be reasonable, and where sufficient cause for delay is shown the claim must be considered in accordance with law. Relying on Smt. Sarvesh Devi (Writ-C No.27527 of 2023), which following Gautam Yadav (2020 (11) ADJ 321) found the 75-day limitation unreasonable and arbitrary, the Court noted that the Supreme Court in National Insurance Com. Ltd. v. Gautam Yadav (Special Leave to Appeal No.7647 of 2021) stayed only the direction treating claims filed within three years of rejection as within limitation, not the entire order; consequently each case must be examined on its own facts for sufficient cause. Finding the respondent had rejected the claim simpliciter without considering the reasons for delay, the Court quashed the impugned order, directed an opportunity of hearing and a reasoned order within eight weeks, and disposed of the petition.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

WRIT - C No. - 2303 of 2026

Sant Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Commissioner And Secy. Board Of Revenue Lko. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s) oar evenue o. n	: Naresh Singh, Rajjan Lal : C.S.C. ers .....Respondent(s)

Court No. - 3

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of the petitioner's claim under the scheme of Mukhymantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana by an order dated 17.02.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 on the ground that the petitioner had made her claim belatedly.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relies upon the judgement passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Sarvesh Devi Vs. The State of U.P. and 3 others (Writ-C No.27527 of 2023).

In the said judgement, a Division Bench of this Court had heard the matter and had after considering the judgement in Gautam Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others reported in 2020 (11) ADJ 321 reiterated that the limitation provided under the said scheme is unreasonable and arbitrary and the period should be three years instead of 75 days. It is to be further noted that the scheme does not provide for any consequences of not making the application within the time framed prescribed, i.e., 75 days.

In our view, the above scheme being a beneficial legislation, the time period for making the claim has to be a reasonable one and if sufficient cause is shown by the petitioner for delay in filing of the said claim, the

WRIC No. 2303 of 2026

2

same is required to be considered in accordance with law.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has placed before us the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the National Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs. Gautam Yadav and others ; Special Leave to Appeal No.7647 of 2021, wherein the Supreme Court has admitted the Special Leave to Appeal and passed the following orders:-

"In compliance of this Court's order dated 02.07.2021, the petitioner has paid the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to the respondent no.1 and has filed proof of making such payment.

Issue notice, returnable in six weeks.

Though notice is being sent to respondent no.1, he need not to appear, as the payment has already been made to him.

In the meanwhile, the direction in the impugned order, that all claims filed within a period of three years from the date of rejection should be treated as within limitation, shall remain stayed."

It may be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not stayed the entire order passed by the High Court in Gautam Yadav (Supra), but only stayed the direction that claims filed within a period of three years from the date of the rejection should be treated as within limitation.

As the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gautam Yadav (supra) has stayed the direction with regard to the extension of limitation period to three years, one will have to examine each case on the facts and circumstances of the same and determine whether sufficient cause was there for delay in filing of the said claim.

In our view, the respondent has not considered the contentions of the petitioner with regard to the reasons for delay in filing of the said application and simpliciter passed the order on the basis that the claim was filed belatedly.

Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside with a direction upon the respondent authority to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and thereafter, pass a reasoned order within a period of

WRIC No. 2303 of 2026

3

eight weeks from date.

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

(Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

May 4, 2026 Ashutosh

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench