JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dinesh Maheshwari, J.—By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought directions against the respondents for payment of an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs with interest to her under the Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme’] that was floated by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the year 2000 for the benefit of registered traders in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 2. Put in a nutshell, the background aspects had been that the petitioner’s husband was a registered trader in the State of Uttar Pradesh who met with his unfortunate end in an accident on 2.11.2003. The petitioner’s claim for payment under the aforesaid Scheme for the reason of demise of her husband in the accident was declined by the respondents essentially on the ground that on the date of demise of her husband, insurance cover had not been taken and thus, according to the respondents, the Scheme was not in operation. The petitioner, however, claims that the Government of Uttar Pradesh floated the said Scheme in the year 2000 for the benefit of the registered traders; and for the purpose of meeting with the finances related with the Scheme, a nucleus fund was created by enhancement of various fees and charges. Thus, according to the petitioner, the respondents in the Government of Uttar Pradesh having recovered the necessary charges from the traders, cannot resile from its promise by merely not taking the insurance cover for a particular period. 3. The relevant factual aspects, more or less indisputable, are as follows: The petitioner’s late husband was the Proprietor of S. K. Bhatta Company, Garh Muktheshwar, Gaziabad, which was registered with the Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax Khand - 1, Hapur under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, as then in force. The respondent No.1 floated the Scheme in question, i.e., the Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme for the benefit of all the traders registered with the Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. and his subordinate officers at district level. The respondent No.1 floated the Scheme in question, i.e., the Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme for the benefit of all the traders registered with the Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. and his subordinate officers at district level. In this regard, the Principal Secretary to the Government in its Kar Evam Nibandhan Vibhag sent a communication dated 4.8.2000 to the respondent No.2/Commissioner on the Government’s decision to float and implement the said Scheme for the traders; and various modalities and mechanisms for this Scheme were stated with salient features that to start with, the Scheme would be for one year and would be implemented through New India Assurance Company Limited whereunder, every eligible person would be insured for an amount of Rs. 1 lakh at a premium of Rs. 21/-. Significantly, therein, it was also stated that for the purpose of payment of premium, a nucleus of the fund [‘beema nidhi’] was to be created from the amount received by enhancement of the cost of forms. 1 lakh at a premium of Rs. 21/-. Significantly, therein, it was also stated that for the purpose of payment of premium, a nucleus of the fund [‘beema nidhi’] was to be created from the amount received by enhancement of the cost of forms. The relevant parts of this communication dated 4.8.2000 could be usefully reproduced as under : Þ^’kklu }kjk O;kikj&dj foHkkx esa iathd`r O;fDrxr LokfeRo okyh QeZ] lk>hnkj QeZ ,oa vfookfgr fgUnq ifjokj ds :i esa O;kikj djus okys O;kikfj;ksa ds lEcU/k esa nq?kZVuk ls e`R;q gksus ij chek ;kstuk ykxw djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA bl ;kstuk ds vuqlkj O;kikjh dh nq?kZVuk ls e`R;q gksus dh n'kk esa ,d yk[k #i;s dh /kujkf'k dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk;sxkA lk>hnkj QeZ ,oa vfookfgr fgUnw ifjokj ds :i esa O;kikj djus okyh QeZ esa ,d ls vf/kd O;kikfj;ksa dk fgr fufgr gks ldrk gSA vr% ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd bu O;kikfj;ksa ds lEcU/k esa izR;sd O;fDr dk chek ugha fd;k tk;sxk cfYd QeZ dks ;g vf/kdkj fn;k tk;sxk fd og viuh QeZ ds ,d O;fDr dks ukfer dj ns ftldh nq?kZVuk ds dkj.k e`R;q gksus ij chek dh /kujkf'k ns; gksxhA ;g ;kstuk fyfeVsM dEiuht] lkslk;Vh] Dyc ;k ,lksfl;s’ku] dsUnz ljdkj ;k jkT; ljdkj ds foHkkx vFkok midze ,oa vU; izkfèkdj.k ;k fudk; ds lEcU/k esa ykxw ugha gksxhA izkjEHk esa chek ;kstuk ,d o"kZ ds fy, ykxw dh tk;sxh vkSj chek dh /kujkf'k dk Hkqxrku okf"kZd vk/kkj ij fd;k tk;sxkA bl o"kZ dh chek ;kstuk fn U;w bafM;k ,';ksjsal dEiuh fyfeVsM e.My dk;kZy;&2] 26@41] 42] 43] Fkkij gkml] fcjgkuk jksM] dkuiqj ds ek/;e ls ykxw dh tk jgh gSA muds }kjk izfr O;fDr #-21@& izfr yk[k izfr o”kZ dh izhfe;e dh nj ij chek djus dk izLrko fn;k x;k gSA ;g ;kstuk ftl rkjh[k ls ykxw gksxh ml rkjh[k dks O;kikj&dj foHkkx esa iathÑr O;kikfj;ksa ds lEcU/k esa gh ykxw gksxhA ;kstuk izkjEHk gksus dh frFkh ds ckn iathÑr O;kikfj;ksa dks bl ;kstuk dk ykHk ugha feysxk vkSj ;fn 'kklu }kjk vxys o"kZ bl ;kstuk dks pykus dk fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk gS rc ml ;kstuk esa ,sls ckn esa iathd‘r gksus okys O;kikfj;ksa dks 'kkfey fd;k tk;sxkA ----------------------------------------- 4& mDr ;kstuk ds lEcU/k esa #-21@& izfr O;fDr dh nj ls tks /kujkf'k dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk gS mlds fy, ,d chek fu/kh cuk;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh vyx ls py jgh gSA bl chek fu/kh esa foHkkx }kjk fcdzh dh;s tkus okys QkeksZa ds ewY; o`f) ds vk/kkj ij izkIr /kujkf'k dks tek fd;k tk;sxkAÞ 4. Close on the heels of the abovereferred decision, a notification dated 31.8.2000 was issued by the Government amending the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1948’] by way of the U.P. Trade Tax (Second Amendment) Rules, 2000 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Amendment Rules of 2000’]. This amendment was essentially for the purpose of enhancing several charges and fees payable by the dealers. The entire of this notification could be taken note of as under : “In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 (U.P. Act No. XV of 1948) read with Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act No.1 of 1904), the Governor, with a view to amending the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Rules, 1948 is pleased to make the following Rules. The Governor, being satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action, is further pleased under proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the said Act of 1948 to make these rules without previous publication. 1. Short title and commencement.—(1) These rules may be called the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax (Second Amendment) Rules, 2000. (2) They shall come into force with effect from the date of their publication in the Gazette. 2. Amendment of Rule 12-A.—In the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Rules, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the said rules, in Rule 12-A the following shall be substituted, namely : “(4) No blank form shall be issued except on payment of fee by the dealer at the rate of rupee five per form. (7) No single certificate shall cover the transaction of purchase or sale of more than one assessment year.” 3. Amendment of Rule 12-B.—In the said rules, in Rule 12-B, for existing sub-rule (3) the following shall be substituted, namely : “(3) No blank form shall be issued except on payment of the fee by dealer at the rate of rupee five per form.” 4. Amendment of Rule 25-A.—In the said rules, in Rule 25-A, the following shall be substituted, namely : “(3) The fee payable by the dealer for recognition certificate shall be two hundred rupees for the first assessment year or part thereof and one hundred rupees for each subsequent year. Amendment of Rule 25-A.—In the said rules, in Rule 25-A, the following shall be substituted, namely : “(3) The fee payable by the dealer for recognition certificate shall be two hundred rupees for the first assessment year or part thereof and one hundred rupees for each subsequent year. (5) The recognition certificate so granted shall take effect from the date of presentation of the application under sub-rule(1) and shall remain in force for so long as the dealer continues to be eligible for grant of recognition certificate under the Act and goes on depositing a fee at the rate of rupee one hundred per year in the prescribed manner before the commencement of the assessment year to which the fee relates, failing which the recognition certificate shall cease to remain in the force: Provided that if the dealer deposits such fee after the commencement of the assessment year to which the fee relates together with a late fee of fifty rupees for every month of delay or part thereof, the Assessing Authority may, on being satisfied that there were sufficient reason for the delay in depositing the fee in time and after recording his reason therefore in writing, direct that the recognition certificate shall be deemed to have remained in force as if no delay have been occurred in depositing the fee: Provided further that the recognition certificate granted to a dealer shall remain in force so long as the dealer continues to be eligible for grant of recognition certificate under the Act, if the dealer deposits an amount of one thousand rupees in lump sum as renewal fee before the renewal of recognition certificate becomes due; and the provisions of the preceding proviso shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to such lump sum deposits as it applies to deposit for annual renewal.” 5. Amendment of Rule 25-B.—In the said rules, in Rule 25-B, the following shall be substituted, namely : “(2) A dealer holding a recognition certificate who wishes to avail of the concession referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 4-B, shall apply to the Assessing Authority within whose jurisdiction his principal place of business is situated for the issue of blank declaration form. No blank declaration form shall be issued by the Assessing Authority except on payment of the fee by the dealer at the rate of rupees five per form. No blank declaration form shall be issued by the Assessing Authority except on payment of the fee by the dealer at the rate of rupees five per form. The application shall be signed by one of the persons mentioned in sub-rule (1) of Rule 25-A. (4) Before furnishing a declaration form of the selling dealer, the purchasing dealer or one of the persons mentioned in sub-rule (1) of Rule 25-A shall fill in all the required particulars and shall sign it. Therefore the counterfoil of the form shall be retained by the purchasing dealer and the other two portions marked “Original” and “Duplicate” shall be made over by him to be selling dealer: Provided that no single form shall cover the transaction of purchase or sale of more than one- assessment year.” 6. Amendment of Rule 44.—In the said rule, in Rule 44, the following shall be substituted namely : “(f) All amounts for which the dealer sells the goods liable to tax at the point of sale manufacturer or importer when such goods are purchased form within the State except the purchases form any other dealer not liable to tax on the sale under the Act.” 7. Amendment of Rule 85.—In the said rules, in Rule 85, the following shall be substituted, namely : “(3) No blank form shall be issued by the Assessing Authority except on payment of a fee of rupees five per form. The application shall be signed by one of the persons mentioned in sub-rule (1) of Rule 54 or a person duly authorised under rule 77-A.” 7. Amendment of Rule 86.—In the said rules, in Rule 86, the following shall be substituted namely : “(3) No certificate shall be issued except on payment of a fee of rupees five per certificate.” 5. Though the petitioner has averred that such an enhancement of fees/charges was directly co-related with the Scheme in question and extra charges were recovered from the traders so as to generate the funds for insurance covers, but the respondents would submit that the increase in the cost of forms by a notification was a ‘routine departmental step’. Though the petitioner has averred that such an enhancement of fees/charges was directly co-related with the Scheme in question and extra charges were recovered from the traders so as to generate the funds for insurance covers, but the respondents would submit that the increase in the cost of forms by a notification was a ‘routine departmental step’. Coming to this aspect a little later, the basic facts further could be noticed that after commencement of the Scheme, an insurance policy was purchased for all the registered traders in the State of Uttar Pradesh from New India Assurance Company Ltd. for a period of one year from 1.9.2000 to 31.8.2001 with an individual’s cover of Rs. 1 lakh. The policy was renewed from 1.9.2001 to 31.8.2002 without any break by the same insurer, i.e., New India Assurance Company Ltd. During the currency of this policy, the sum insured was increased from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 2 lakhs w.e.f. 31.12.2001. After expiry of the term of this policy, a new policy for another year was taken from Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Lucknow, but that commenced from 1.10.2002 for insurance cover of Rs. 2 lakhs each. Thus, for a short interval, i.e., from 1.9.2002 to 30.9.2002, no policy of insurance as such was in operation. 6. It appears that before expiry of the term of the third policy, i.e., before 30.9.2003, the propositions were afoot to increase the insurance cover of the traders concerned. However, before any decision was finally taken for increasing the insurance cover, as the term of the earlier policy was coming to an end, the respondent No.2/Commissioner issued a tender notice in the month of August, 2003 itself inviting offers from the interested insurers for providing such insurance cover (Annexure - 7) In this notice inviting offers, the offerer was specifically asked to address to the points as to how much premium was to be paid for the insurance coverage of Rs. 2 lakhs as also for the insurance coverage of Rs. 5 lakhs; and how much amount would be payable if the insurance coverage was later on increased from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs. Even the option was kept open by the State Government to enter into the contract for a period of five years if the terms were attractive enough. The offers were to be submitted by 8.9.2003. 5 lakhs; and how much amount would be payable if the insurance coverage was later on increased from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs. Even the option was kept open by the State Government to enter into the contract for a period of five years if the terms were attractive enough. The offers were to be submitted by 8.9.2003. It appears, however, that such a process of tenders did not reach its finality because the matter, regarding increase of the insurance cover, remained under consideration at different levels in the Government. In this regard, a communication sent by the Special Secretary to the respondent No.2/Commissioner dated 27.9.2003 (Annexure - 8) reads as under : Þd`i;k nq?kZVuk chek ;kstuk ykxw fd;s tkus fo”k;d Jh lksrh jfoUnz pUnz] ,fM'kuy dfe'uj ¼fo/kh½ O;kikj dj ds i= la[;k &chek ;kstuk ¼2003&2004½ 1426@O;kikj dj fnukad 25&6&2003 dk lUnHkZ xzg.k djsaA 2& bl lEcU/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dh vis{kk dh x;h gS fd ‘kklu }kjk nq?kZVuk chek ;kstuk 2-00 yk[k #i;s ls 5 yk[k #i;s fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa vkids }kjk Hksts x;s izLrko dks lS)kfUrd :i ls Lohdkj djrs gq, ;kstuk ds dk;kZUo;u gsrq funsZ'k fn;s x;s FksA bl lEcUèk esa vkids foHkkx }kjk tks Vs.Mj izkIr fd;s x;s gSA mlh dk ijh{k.k djkdj 'kklu }kjk xfBr lfefr ds }kjk viuh Li"V vuq'kalk Hkstus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k FkkA 3& vr% vkils vuqjks/k gS fd 'kklu }kjk xfBr lfefr ds }kjk foLr`r ijh{k.k dj viuh fjiksVZ 'kklu dks vfoyEc Hkstus dh O;oLFkk djsaA 'kklu Lrj ij cSBd cqyk;s tkus ij rHkh fopkj fd;k tkuk lEHko gksxk] tc lfefr dh 'kklu dks izkIr gks tk;sxhAÞ 7. It appears further that the Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State of U.P. made a public announcement on 3.10.2003 in a Conference of the traders that the insurance cover would be increased from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 4 lakhs. It appears further that the Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State of U.P. made a public announcement on 3.10.2003 in a Conference of the traders that the insurance cover would be increased from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 4 lakhs. In this regard, yet another communication from the same Special Secretary to the Commissioner dated 15.10.2003 (Annexure - 10) could be noticed as under: Þd`i;k foHkkx esa iathd`r O;kikfj;ksa ds lEcU/k esa nq?kZVuk chek ;kstuk ykxw fd;s tkus ds lEcUèk esa vius i= la[;k&fo/kh &1¼3½& lkewfgd nq?kZVuk chek ;kstuk ¼2003&2004½ fnukad 6 vDVwcj 2003 dk lUnHkZ xzg.k djsaA 2& bl lEcU/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dh vis{kk dh x;h gS fd fnukad 03 vDVwcj 2003 dks O;kikfj;ksa ds lEesyu esa ek0 eq[;ea=h th }kjk nq?kZVuk lkewfgd chek ;kstuk dh chfer jkf'k 2-00 yk[k #i;s ls 4-00 yk[k #i;s fd;s tkus dh ?kks"k.kk dh gSA vr% vkils vuqjks/k gS fd d‘i;k ek0 eq[;ea=h th dh ?kks"k.kk ds vuqlkj lEcfU/kr chek daifu;ksa ls lekpkj i= esa izdk’ku dj vkSipkfjd izLrko izkIr djsa rFkk 'kklu }kjk xfBr lfefr ds }kjk ijh{k.k djkdj izLrko izkIr 'kklu dks ;Fkk'kh?kz Hkstus dh O;oLFkk djsaAÞ 8. Significantly thereafter, a fresh notice was issued by the respondent No.2/Commissioner on 18.10.2003 (Annexure - 11) inviting offers for providing insurance cover from 1.11.2003 to 31.3.2005 for the financial years 2003-04 and 2004-05. Significantly thereafter, a fresh notice was issued by the respondent No.2/Commissioner on 18.10.2003 (Annexure - 11) inviting offers for providing insurance cover from 1.11.2003 to 31.3.2005 for the financial years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The contents of this notice inviting offers could also be taken note of as under : Þfufonk lwpuk fofRr; o"kZ 2003&2004 o 2004&2005 esa fnukad 1&11&2003 ls 31&3&2005 rd dh vofèk gsrq izns'k esa O;kikj dj foHkkx esa iathÑr O;kikfj;ksa ds fy, lkewfgd nq?kZVuk chek ;kstuk iqu% ykxw dh tkuh gSA mDr iz;kstu gsrq Hkkjr ljdkj ls ,rnFkZ ekU;rk izkIr dEifu;ksa ls eksgj cUn fufonk,a vkeaf=r dh tkrh gSaA mRrj izns'k esa yxHkx 4 yk[k O;kikjh gSA foxr o"kksZa esa ykxw ;kstuk esa yxHkx rhu yk[k O;kikjh lEefyr gq, gSa] ftudh izhfe;e jkf'k dk Hkqxrku jkT; ljdkj }kjk fd;k x;k gSA ;kstuk esa lEefyr gksus okys O;kikfj;ksa dh la[;k de@vf/kd gks ldrh gSA chek daiuh }kjk izLrqr dh tkus okyh fufonk esa fuEu fcUnqvksa ij izLrko izsf"kr fd;s tk;sa& 1& chek ;kstuk ds vUrxrZ #0 4 yk[k dh chfer jkf'k ds lEcU/k esa ns; izhfe;e jkf'kA 2& pkj yk[k dh chfer jkf'k ds vfrfjDr eSfpax xzkaV ds vUrxZr ns; vkd"kZd iSdst ls lEcfUèkr jkf'kA 3& jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr ekin.M ds vuqlkj chfer O;fDr;ksa ds vfrfjDr QeZ ds vU; lk>hnkjksa dks chek ;kstuk dk ykHk fn;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa O;kikjh }kjk ns; vfrfjDr izhfe;e jkf'kA 4& fu/kZfjr izhfe;e ds vUrxZr chfer O;fDr dks ns; vU; ykHk tks chek daiuh }kjk fn;s tk ldrs gSaA 5& vU; rF;ksa ds gksrs gq, Hkh ;fn fdlh chek daiuh dk izLrko jkT; ljdkj }kjk vkd"kZd ik;k tkrk gS rks mls ojh;rk nh tk;sxhA fufonk dh 'krsZa v/kksgLrk{kjh ds dk;kZy; esa izFkd ls miyC/k gSa ftUgsa fufonk izLrqr djus okyh chek daifu;k fdlh dk;Z fnol esa fu%'kqYd izkIr dj ldrh gSA bPNqd chek daifu;ka viuk izLrko fnukad 29&10&2003 dh izkr% 11 cts rd dfe'uj O;kikj dj] mRrj izns'k foHkwfr [k.M xkserh uxj y[kuÅ ds dk;kZy; ds xzkmUM ry ij fLFkr ,Mh'kuy dfe'uj O;kikj d{k esa mifLFkr fufonknkrkvksa ds le{k [kksys tk;saxsAÞ 9. Despite the notice inviting offers aforesaid and for inexplicable reasons, the insurance cover was, however, not taken from 1.11.2003 as proposed in the notice; but a new policy was taken by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 from the respondent No.4 United India Insurance Company Limited only w.e.f. 1.4.2004. 10. Despite the notice inviting offers aforesaid and for inexplicable reasons, the insurance cover was, however, not taken from 1.11.2003 as proposed in the notice; but a new policy was taken by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 from the respondent No.4 United India Insurance Company Limited only w.e.f. 1.4.2004. 10. The disquieting part of the matter had been that the petitioner’s husband expired in an accident on 2.11.2003. The claim made by the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs under the aforesaid Scheme while submitting the relevant documents pertaining to the accidental death of her husband was forwarded by the department to the respondent-insurer for payment under the communication dated 6.9.2004. However, the insurer did not make the payment and in its communication dated 15.7.2005, asserted that its insurance policy was effective only for the period from 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005 and hence, the claim in respect of the husband of the petitioner, who expired on 2.11.2003, was not payable by it. 11. It is borne out that there had been a few more cases with the respondents where the trader had expired in the interregnum, i.e., the blank period after expiry of the earlier insurance policy and before commencement of the new insurance policy (from 1.10.2003 to 31.3.2004). The respondent No.2/ Commissioner informed of such facts to the Government and made a request for approval of the payment in relation to such claims under his communication dated 27.6.2005. The Commissioner pointed out the facts that the insurance cover could not be taken for certain reasons for two periods, i.e., from 1.9.2002 to 30.9.2002 and from 1.10.2003 to 31.3.2004 and else, the insurance cover was provided right from the beginning of the Scheme, i.e., 1.9.2000. The Commissioner indicated the desirability of the payment in relation to seven claims made in respect of the persons who had expired during the period from 1.10.2003 to 31.3.2004. The claim of the petitioner was also included therein. The Commissioner indicated the desirability of the payment in relation to seven claims made in respect of the persons who had expired during the period from 1.10.2003 to 31.3.2004. The claim of the petitioner was also included therein. The Commissioner, inter alia, stated as under : Þiqu% lwP; gS fd iz'uxr O;kikjh nq?kZVuk chek ;kstuk izns'k ljdkj }kjk iathd`r O;kikfj;ksa ds fgr esa ykxw dh xbZ gSAa vr% ;g mfpr gksxk fd mijksDrkuqlkj vukPNkfnr vofèk ds nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q O;kikfj;ksa dks 'kklu Lrj ls chfer fofHkUu vof/k esa ykxw chfer /kujkf'k dk lerqY; chek /kujkf'k ds Hkqxrku ij iz'kklfud@foRrh; Lohd`fr nsus ds lEcU/k esa fu.kZ; fy;k tk;A ;g Hkh lehphu gksxk fd nq?kZVuk esa e`rd iath;u O;kikfj;ksa ds lEcU/k esa Hkqxrku izfdz;k esa ,d:irk cuk;s j[kus ds fy, lS)kfUrd rkSj ij fuEu izfdz;k viukbZ tk;AÞ 12. In his further communication dated 7.9.2005, the Commissioner, while reiterating the propositions stated in the aforesaid communication dated 27.6.2005, elaborated on the justification that such payment ought to be approved by the Government as a substantial amount of more than Rs. 1.58 crores forming the corpus for insurance coverage was indeed available even after payment of the premium for the current insurance coverage. 1.58 crores forming the corpus for insurance coverage was indeed available even after payment of the premium for the current insurance coverage. This part of the communication dated 7.9.2005 reads as under : Þpkyw fofRrh; o"kZ 2005&06 gsrq iz'uxr ;kstuk ds fy, 'kklukns'k la0&d0& fu0&4@859@11&2005&300 ¼22½@2004 fnukad 7&4&2005 }kjk #0 2]04]00]000@& ¼# nks djksM+ pkj yk[k½ dh /kujkf'k voeqDr dh x;h gSA iz'uxr ;kstuk pkyw foRrh; o"kZ esa loZJh vkbZ0lh0vkbZlh0vkbZ0 yksEckMZ tujy bU';ksjsUl da0 fy0 y[kuÅ }kjk lapkfyr dh tk jgh gS ftls VsUMj izfdz;k ds vkèkkj ij o"kZ Hkj izns'k ds dqy iathd`r O;kikfj;ksa gsrq # 1]03]03]700@&¼# ,d djksM+ rhu yk[k rhu gtkj lkr lkS ek=½ izhfe;e dh /kujkf'k dk Hkqxrku visf{kr FkkA mDr /kujkf'k esa ls # 58]00]000&00 foxr o"kZ ds ctV izko/kku ls 'kklu dh vuqefr ls Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS ¼izfr layXu½A bl izdkj pkyw foRrh; o"kZ esa laxr vuqnku la0&89 ds vUrxZr ys[kk'kh"kZd &2040 fcdzh O;kikj vkfn ij dj 800&vU vk;kstusRrj 07 &m0iz0 iathd`r O;kikfj;ksa ds fy, tksf[ke O;fDrxr nq?kZVuk chek ;kstuk 42 &vU O;; ds vUrxZr pkyw foRrh; o”kZ esa izkfo/kkfur /kujkf'k #0 2]04]00]000@& esa ls dqy #i;k 45]03]700@& O;; gkus ds mijkUr # 1]58]96]300@& ek= vo'ks"k gSA bl vo'ks"k /kujkf'k dk mi;ksx mDr ;kstuk ds vUrxZr mDr vukPNkfnr vof/k esa e`r iathd`r O;kikfj;ksa ds ifjokj dks mUgh 'krksZa ij YkkHk iznku fd;k tk ldrk gS tks 'krsZa o njsa bl vof/k ds Bhd iwoZ ykxw FkhA mDr vukPNkfnr vof/k ds lEcUèk esa fu.kZ; fy, tkus ds mijkUr bldk izpkj izlkj fd;s tkus ij mDr lkr izdj.kksa ds vfrfjDr vkSj Hkh ,sls os izdj.k izkIr gksxsa tks vukPNknfr gksus ds dkj.k vHkh ugha Hksts x;s gaSA vLrq vuqjks/k gS fd Ñi;k izdj.k esa 'kklu Lrj ij fopkj dj mi;qZDr iathÑr O;kikfj;ksa ds mRrjkf/kdkfj;ksa dks iz'uxr ;kstuk dk ykHk vuqnku la0&89 ds vUrxZr ys[kk 'kh"kZd&2040& fcdzh O;kikj vkfn ij dj&800& vU;&O;& vk;kstusRrj& 07&m0iz0 iathÑr O;kikfj;ksa ds fy, tksf[ke O;fDrxr nq?kZVuk chek ;kstuk&42&vU O;; ds vUrxZr pkyw foRrh; o"kZ 2005&06 ls izkfo/kkfur /kujkf'k esa ls vo'ks"k miyC/k mDr /kujkf'k ls O;; djus gsrq foRrh; ,oa iz'kklfud LohÑfr 'kh?kz iznku djkus dh Ñik djsaAÞ The proposition of the Commissioner, however, did not meet with the approval and was rejected by the Government under its communication dated 20.9.2005. 13. 13. While stating that she came to know about such rejection of her claim from a newspaper report dated 24.9.2005, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition inter alia on the grounds that her husband and other registered traders and their families were totally oblivious of the fact that earlier policy had lapsed and that the respondents had been negligent in taking a fresh policy. According to the petitioner, even if the policy had not been taken for the period in question, i.e., from 1.10.2003 to 31.3.2004, the respondents had been collecting funds from the registered traders by way of increase in the cost of forms and other fees; and the petitioner’s husband having also paid the extra cost of forms and renewal fees, it was her legitimate right to get the benefit of the Scheme. The emphasis of the petitioner is that the Scheme in question was always subsisting and was not withdrawn from 1.10.2003 to 31.3.2004; and if the insurance policy was not renewed in time due to negligence of the officers of respondent Nos.1 and 2, she could not be deprived of her legitimate and accrued rights. It is also submitted with reference to the contents of the aforesaid communications from the respondent No.2 that substantial fund was created and was available for arranging the payment under the Scheme; and it was incumbent for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to compensate the petitioner from the money available in this fund. 14. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have not denied the fact that the Government took a policy decision as communicated under the letter dated 4.8.2000 for providing Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme for the benefit of registered traders in the State of U.P. The respondents, however, submit that the Scheme was launched for a period of one year and a separate decision was to be taken by the State Government for its further implementation in subsequent years; and, according to the respondents, the Scheme was not in force during the period from 1.9.2002 to 30.9.2002 and again from 1.10.2003 to 31.3.2004 and as such, benefit of the Scheme was not available to the dependents of the traders, who expired during these periods. Thus, according to the respondents, since the Scheme was not applicable at the time of demise of the husband of the petitioner, i.e., on 2.11.2003, she is not entitled to claim any benefit thereunder. Thus, according to the respondents, since the Scheme was not applicable at the time of demise of the husband of the petitioner, i.e., on 2.11.2003, she is not entitled to claim any benefit thereunder. The decision as said to have been taken by the Government after due consideration on 20.9.2005 has been placed on record as Annexure -CA1. As already noticed, the increase in the cost of forms is said to be a so-called ‘routine departmental step’ by the respondents. The respondents in their counter-affidavit, though have not denied the core of factual aspects relating to the availability of fund but have alleged that such unutilized amount was for those who would fall within the ‘insured period’ and was not ‘specifically’ meant for paying the ‘uninsured period’ claims. The averments in this regard in the counter-affidavit read as under : “22. That the contents of paragraph 23 of the Writ Petition are denied. It is stated that the unutilized insurance amount of Rs. 1,58,96,300.00 was not specifically meant for paying for “the uninsured” period claims. It is but natural that the first claimant of this amount were to be those who would fall in the “insured period”.” 15. This petition was earlier considered by a Co-ordinate Bench on 18.5.2005 and taking note of the salient features, this Court posed a question as to why the petitioner be made to suffer for the lapse of the State Government in not paying the premium at the relevant point of time; and the respondents related with the State Government were called upon to state as to why the directions as prayed for be not issued. The order dated 18.5.2015 reads as under : “It appears that the petitioner is wife of late Sudhir Kumar, who was proprietor of Shri S.K. Bhatta Company National Highway Garh Muktheshwar, Ghaziabad, a registered dealer under U.P. Trade Tax Act, as it existed at the relevant period. It appears that by the U.P. Trade Tax (Second Amendment) Rules, 2000, effective from 31.8.2000, the Trade Tax Department has enhanced the fee for issuing requisite form provided under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and the Rule made thereunder with the assurance that all the registered proprietors will be ensured that on their death they will be paid necessary compensation. It appears that by the U.P. Trade Tax (Second Amendment) Rules, 2000, effective from 31.8.2000, the Trade Tax Department has enhanced the fee for issuing requisite form provided under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and the Rule made thereunder with the assurance that all the registered proprietors will be ensured that on their death they will be paid necessary compensation. It appears that for some of the period the premium has been paid by the State Government to the Insurance Company for getting all the registered dealers insured, but for certain relevant period, namely from 1st November, 2003, the premium has not been paid. Unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner died on 24.11.2003, the date on which the premium for insurance has not been paid by the State Government. The petitioner claimed compensation. However, the same has been denied on the ground that during the period 1.11.2003 onward the premium has not been paid. However, it is accepted in the counter-affidavit that for the subsequent period the premium has again been paid. The question for consideration is that for the lapse of the State Government for not paying the premium why the petitioner should suffer. On the assurance given by the then Chief Minister and the State Government, all the proprietors have accepted the payment on higher fee for obtaining requisite forms. Therefore, we are directing the State Government to come forward and state that why for their fault of non-payment of the premium for the period from 1.3.2003 onward and why the direction should not be given to the State Government to pay the compensation for their own fault. The necessary Counter affidavit, on this point, may be filed by the State Government within a period of three weeks’. List in the second week of July, 2015.” 16. The necessary Counter affidavit, on this point, may be filed by the State Government within a period of three weeks’. List in the second week of July, 2015.” 16. Pursuant to the directions aforesaid, a supplementary counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondents, essentially stating: (a) that upon forwarding of the petitioner’s case, the department had recommended the matter, but the Finance Department as also the Law Department of the Government opined against payment to the legal heirs of those traders, who had died during the periods from 1.9.2002 to 30.9.2002 and 1.10.2003 to 31.3.2004 and hence, the decision was taken by the Government not to provide benefit of the Scheme to the heirs of such deceased traders; and (b) that as the issue of increase of the insurance cover from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs was under consideration, which consumed considerable time, the Scheme ‘could not be renewed for certain period’. 17. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit essentially stating that from the own showing of the respondents, the Scheme was indeed in existence and merely for not taking of the cover for a particular period, benefit of the Scheme could not be denied to the eligible persons, particularly when the fund had been generated by increasing the cost of forms and fees and substantially unutilized amount was admittedly available in the fund. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel have made elaborate submissions in conformity with the respective pleadings. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Scheme was nevertheless in operation even if insurance cover as such was not taken for the fault attributable only to the officers of respondent Nos.1 and 2; and existing the Scheme with availability of the fund generated by enhancement of the fees and charges, the respondents had been unjustified in denying the claim of the petitioner. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that increase in the cost of forms and other fees cannot be directly co-related with the insurance cover and in any case, when the insurance cover was not available for a particular period, the Scheme was not in operation; and the husband of the petitioner having expired on the date when the Scheme was not in operation, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any benefit. 20. 20. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the material placed on record, we are clearly of the view that the stand taken by the respondents in this case cannot be accepted and this writ petition deserves to be allowed with costs. 21. The first question calling for determination in the present writ petition is as to whether the Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme that was floated by the Government of U.P. in the year 2000 was existing and was operative on the date of demise of the petitioner’s husband or not? 22. The contesting respondents contend that the insurance cover having not been taken from 1.10.2003 to 31.3.2004, the Scheme was not in operation for this period. In our view, the facts and circumstances of the case, taken in their totality, clearly refute and belie the stand of the respondents. Indisputably, the Scheme was floated in the year 2000 with the object of providing insurance cover to the traders in the State of U.P. The Scheme commenced from 1.9.2000 and the insurance policy to cover the risk for a year was taken from New India Assurance Company Limited, Kanpur. The policy was further taken for another year from 1.9.2001 to 31.8.2002 from the same insurer. Even if an insurance policy was not taken for a short period of one month from 1.9.2002 to 30.9.2002, it was taken again w.e.f. 1.10.2002 for another year i.e., upto 30.9.2003 from Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Lucknow. Then, even if the insurance policy was further not taken from 1.10.2003 to 31.3.2004, it was indeed taken yet again, now from United India Insurance Company Limited, Lucknow from 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005. As per the communication of the Commissioner dated 27.6.2005, it was further taken from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006 from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Lucknow. 23. In conjunction with the facts noticed above, a reference to the notice Annexure 7 makes it evident that offers were indeed invited from the insurers for providing the insurance cover from 1.10.2003 to 30.9.2004. The matter, of course, remained under consideration, but the proposition had only been of enhancing the amount of insurance coverage. In fact, such a proposition was also indicated in the notice inviting offers (Annexure 7) itself where the insurers were asked to state the premium amount for a coverage of Rs. 2 lakhs as also for a coverage of Rs. The matter, of course, remained under consideration, but the proposition had only been of enhancing the amount of insurance coverage. In fact, such a proposition was also indicated in the notice inviting offers (Annexure 7) itself where the insurers were asked to state the premium amount for a coverage of Rs. 2 lakhs as also for a coverage of Rs. 5 lakhs and further, for the terms for enhancement of coverage during the currency of policy. As per the communication dated 15.10.2003, the Hon’ble Chief Minister had announced that such an insurance coverage for the traders shall be increased from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 4 lakhs. To cap it all, even in the fresh notice inviting offers dated 18.10.2003 (Annexure - 11), the department indeed invited the offers for insurance coverage of Rs. 4 lakhs for the individual trader from 1.11.2003 to 31.3.2005. The respondents submit that for certain reasons, the policy was not taken from 1.10.2003 to 31.3.2004. Whatever might have been the reasons, in our view, mere not taking of the insurance policy for a particular period cannot be said to be conclusive of the issue that the Scheme was not in operation. As noticed above, the Scheme was floated in the year 2000 and was continued with taking of the insurance cover from different insurers. Even if there was a break in taking the policy for a period from 1.10.2003 to 31.3.2004, it is but clear that the respondents had regularly issued notice inviting offers (Annexure 7 and Annexure 11). 24. On the indisputable facts available on record, the respondents do not appear correct in contending that the Scheme was not applicable or was not in operation at the relevant point of time. The Scheme as floated, and being a beneficial Scheme for the registered traders, was indeed operative and applicable all through since its inception w.e.f. 1.9.2000. It had neither been discontinued nor disbanded nor even kept in abeyance. On the contrary, the insurance cover was indeed taken for further period, of course from 1.4.2004. The delay in taking of the policy, that had occurred essentially for the reason that enhancement of the coverage amount was under consideration, did not result in the Scheme being not operative for the period in question. 25. On the contrary, the insurance cover was indeed taken for further period, of course from 1.4.2004. The delay in taking of the policy, that had occurred essentially for the reason that enhancement of the coverage amount was under consideration, did not result in the Scheme being not operative for the period in question. 25. The petitioner’s case stand moreover on a stronger footing when it is noticed that despite all correspondence and a slight delay, in the notice inviting offers dated 18.10.2003, the coverage was contemplated from 1.11.2003 to 31.3.2005. If the respondents thereafter delayed the process and purchased the policy from the insurer only w.e.f. 1.4.2004, the default cannot be allowed to operate against the claim of a bona fide claimant like the petitioner, whose husband expired on 2.11.2003. 26. In the totality of circumstances, we are clearly of the view that the Scheme was in operation ever since its commencement w.e.f. 1.9.2000 and was indeed in operation on the date of demise of the petitioner’s husband, i.e., 2.11.2003. 27. At this juncture, it does appear appropriate to refer to another limb of arguments of the petitioner that the corpus [beema nidhi] for the Scheme in question was created by enhancement of the fees of forms and other charges. The submission of the petitioner has been put to contention by the respondents while suggesting that the increase in cost of forms was a ‘routine departmental step’. On comprehension of the material on record, we find such a stand of the respondents not justified and they being not forthright in their submissions. It is noticed that in the very first proposition for floating the Scheme in question, it was suggested on 4.8.2000 that the fund for the Scheme would be created by increase of cost of forms. The amendment to the Rules of 1948 by way of the Amendment Rules of 2000 was brought about immediately thereafter on 31.8.2000. By way of this amendment, substantial increase was made in the cost of forms and fees and registration/renewal charges, which were to be recovered from the traders alone. The Commissioner’s communications also make it clear that a fund was indeed created for the purpose of the Scheme in question. Obviously, this fund was created only from the amount recovered from the traders themselves. 28. The Commissioner’s communications also make it clear that a fund was indeed created for the purpose of the Scheme in question. Obviously, this fund was created only from the amount recovered from the traders themselves. 28. Viewed in the light of the facts available on record, it is but evident that the so called ‘routine departmental step’ with enhancement of fees and charges had one of the purposes of extending benefit of the Scheme to the traders. Even if the reasons for substantial increase in fees and charges by amendment of the Rules of 1948 had not been stated in the Amendment Rules of 2000 as such, it had not been clarified by the respondents as to how the fund for the Scheme was otherwise generated at all? It had not been the case of the respondents that such a fund was created by any grant made by the Government of its own. All the facts and surrounding factors lead to the inescapable conclusion that the corpus for the Scheme had indeed been created by the amount recovered from the traders only. 29. Once it is found that the corpus was indeed created by the amount recovered from the traders, by enhancement of fees and charges by the department, the Government of U.P. cannot resile from a promise directly made that the traders were being provided a cover under the Scheme. With availability of the corpus created by the recoveries made from the traders, the respondents of the Government of Uttar Pradesh cannot deprive the benefit of the Scheme to the eligible persons only for the fault on their part in delaying the next insurance cover after expiry of the period of the earlier insurance cover. 30. Coming to the question if the petitioner is entitled to the monetary relief as claimed, we have no hesitation in answering in the affirmative. The Commissioner’s communications dated 27.6.2005 and 7.9.2005 [Annexure 14 and Annexure 16], the relevant parts whereof have been reproduced hereinabove, make it rather indisputable that a substantial fund was available with the Government to defray the bona fide claims under the Scheme. 31. The fact that such a fund was indeed available has not been denied by the respondents even in the counter-affidavit. 31. The fact that such a fund was indeed available has not been denied by the respondents even in the counter-affidavit. What has been suggested cursorily in the counter-affidavit is that such a fund was available to satisfy the claims under the ‘insurance coverage period’ and not specifically for the ‘uninsured period’. It is difficult to find any logic or basis in such a suggestion of the respondents that though the fund was created but a so-called ‘uninsured period’ was to be treated by them differently. We are constrained to observe that any such proposition would be rather a fraudulent one on the part of the respondents that they would have a corpus created for the purpose of benefit of the traders by recovering money from the traders only and yet, they would not take the insurance policy for a particular period and then, would suggest that the sufferers during this period are not entitled to the benefit. The corpus being available and taking of insurance coverage being the exclusive responsibility of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, if they had omitted to take any such cover, the genuine claim made by the petitioner cannot be negated and is required to be honoured by them. Looking to the nature of relationship created with the promise made by the Government and with creation of corpus by recovering money from the traders for their own benefit, the Government was bound to ensure continuance of the insurance policy by taking the same continuously and by making adequate payment of premium. In any case, when the money for the purpose of premium was available with the Government, whether it was paid to an insurer or not, there cannot be conceived a so-called ‘uninsured period’ during the currency of the Scheme. As already observed, the Scheme was neither disbanded nor kept in abeyance during the relevant period. The Government is, therefore, bound to honour the claim of the petitioner. 32. We find the stand of the respondents totally unjustified and lacking in sensitivity that despite availability of the corpus and despite communications from the Commissioner for honouring the claims, they chose to reject the claim of the petitioner. The decision as said to have been taken by the Government on 20.9.2005 being unjustified and rather an insensitive one and is thoroughly disapproved. 33. The decision as said to have been taken by the Government on 20.9.2005 being unjustified and rather an insensitive one and is thoroughly disapproved. 33. With reference to the propositions as stated in the notice inviting offers dated 18.10.2003 (Annexure - 11), we further find it just and proper to conclude that the coverage available in the case of the petitioner’s husband was an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Four lakhs) and she was entitled to the same upon the demise of her husband in an accident. Insurance policy for the period in question having not been taken by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for no fault of the petitioner or her late husband, the said respondents are liable to satisfy the petitioner’s claim. 34. As the fundamental facts, that the petitioner’s husband was a registered trader and died in an accident, have not been put to contention, we find just and proper to issue appropriate directions for payment to the petitioner. The petitioner having been deprived of her legitimate claim in an entirely unjustified and arbitrary manner is also entitled to interest, but in the circumstances of the case, we would allow interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of this writ petition. 35. Accordingly and in view of the above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed in the manner that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to make payment of an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Four lakhs) under the Scheme in question to the petitioner together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of this writ petition. The petitioner is also held entitled to the cost of this writ petition quantified at Rs. 5,500/- (Five thousand five hundred), payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. ———————