KETUKA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ITS CHIEF SECY. GOVT. OF U.P., LUCKNOW AND 4 OTHERS
WRIC/10655/2025 · 2025-11-04
Prashant Kumar, Shekhar B Saraf
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 176979 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 176979 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10655 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner has made following main prayer(s):
"() issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing of the order/letter dated 16.7.2025 issued by the opposite party No.5, the Tehsildar Sadar, Hardoi, as contained in Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 2&3 to provide the compensation under the Mukhya Mantri Krishak Durghatan Kalyan Yojna, under the aforesaid scheme the State Government provide insurance protection to the deceased's family issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, to the petitioner."
3. We have perused the documents annexed in the writ petition and there appears to be a confusion with regard to death of the petitioner's husband. The impugned order relies on the family register, wherein age of the petitioner's husband appears to be 74 years at the time of death. However, postmortem report and the death certificate indicate the age of the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chandra Bhanu Singh, Rajesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ketuka .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Its Chief Secy. Govt. Of U.P., Lucknow And 4 Others .....Respondent(s)
petitioner's husband as 70 years while the aadhaar card produced by the petitioner indicates that the age of the petitioner's husband was less than 70 years at the time of death. 4. In light of the said confusion, we are of the view that the petitioner should be allowed once again to produce relevant documents before the authorities, who are required to examine the mater in detail and thereafter pass a reasoned order. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside with direction to the respondents to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner for providing relevant documents and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from date. 6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
November 4, 2025 Anupam S/- WRIC No. 10655 of 2025 2 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench