HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 28237 of 2025 Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Shukla for the petitioners and Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava for the private respondent.
2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the insurance company being the petitioners herein have assailed the order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the District Level Committee headed by the District Magistrate.
3. By way of the impugned order the District Level committee had decided the claim in favour of respondent no. 1 (the claimant).
4. It is to be noted that a similar matter had come before the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited And Another vs. State of U.P. And 8 Others in Writ - C No.23060 of 2022 [decided on September 22, 2022 (Neutral Citation No. - 2022:AHC:155132-DB)], wherein the coordinate Bench of this Court had held as follows :-
"Heard Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. The petitioner herein is the Oriental Insurance Company Limited who seeks to challenge the order of the District Review Committee to grant relief to the claimants under Mukyamantri Kisan & Sarvhit Bima Yojna. At the outset, we may state that the insurance company cannot be said to Versus
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arun Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Alka Srivastava, C.S.C. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited And 2
Others .....Petitioner(s)
Smt. Jagbiri And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
1
be an aggrieved person because of the decision of the District Magistrate, in as much as, at the time of settlement of the claim, all objections of the insurance company are placed before the District Review Committee which is the final authority in the matter.
The insurance company which has entered into an agreement with the state government which is group policy holder, cannot challenge the decision of the District Review Committee in allowing the claim as aggrieved person.
The challenge, therefore, cannot be sustained in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed as such.
However, it goes without saying that it is open for the insurance company to approach the state government, in case of any violation of the insurance policy."
5. Following the doctrine of comity and arguments raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties, we are at consensus ad idem with the aforesaid judgement and we see no reason as to why the insurance company should be allowed to challenge the decision of the District Level Committee by way of this writ petition when in the contract between the insurance company and the State Government, it is categorically agreed between the parties that the decision of the District Level Committee shall be final and binding upon the insurance company. Ergo, we see no reason to interfere in the impugned order that has been passed.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall no order as to costs.
7. The petitioners are directed to make payment to the claimant within a period of four weeks from date in accordance with the scheme.
September 18, 2025
gp WRIC No. 28237 of 2025
2
(Arun Kumar,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)
2
Comments