JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nishant Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. Considering the facts of case we do not find any new ground to call for any counter-affidavit. 2. By means of this writ petitioner has prayed for following reliefs : ''(I) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari whereby pleased to set aside/quash impugned order dated 28.3.2023 passed by respondent No. 1 contained at Annexure 1 with this petition.'' (II) issue a writ order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding respondent to provide benefit of Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Beema Yojana to petitioner within limited frame work of time.'' 3. By means of this impugned order dated 28.3.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur claim of the petitioner for the insured amount under the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Beema Yojna has been declined on the ground that though, it was asserted by the petitioner that her husband died on 14.10.2021 but while claiming the insured amount the petitioner, who was required to annex certain documents as per the Scheme dated 28.2.2020, had not submitted the postmortem report and 'Panchnama', only on this ground the claim has been rejected. 4. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that death of the husband had occurred in a motor accident and based on the said incident the accused are being prosecuted before the trial Court and the State itself is prosecuting them based on the F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 0327 of 2021 dated 14.10.2021 lodged at Police Station - Chanda, District - Sultanpur and after investigation charge-sheet has been filed against the accused, copy of which is annexed as SA-2 to the supplementary-affidavit dated 2.5.2023, copy of which is in possession of the learned Standing Counsel, though, the Court record does not bear its receipt. Learned counsel for the petitioner has certified copy of the same which he has produced before us and we have taken it on record. It is also the contention of the petitioner's counsel that once the State itself is prosecuting the accused, then, there is no doubt about the manner and cause of death of the petitioner's husband. It being so, the reasons given for rejection of the petitioner's claim, cannot be sustained. 5. It is also the contention of the petitioner's counsel that once the State itself is prosecuting the accused, then, there is no doubt about the manner and cause of death of the petitioner's husband. It being so, the reasons given for rejection of the petitioner's claim, cannot be sustained. 5. The contention of Shri Nishant Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State is that scheme requires certain documents to be furnished, two of which are postmortem report and 'Panchnama', as, these were not furnished, therefore, the District Magistrate has rejected the claim. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are of the opinion that the object behind the provision contained in G.O. dated 28.2.2020 requiring the claimant to submit certain documents such as postmortem report and 'Panchnama' is to be doubly sure about the nature of the death and whether it is covered by the provisions contained in the aforesaid Government Order or not. In this case, even though, the 'Panchnama' and postmortem were not filed by the petitioner, one cannot loose sight of the fact that an F.I.R. was lodged as referred hereinabove, based thereon investigation has been conducted and the Investigating Officer has filed charge-sheet in a competent Court of criminal jurisdiction, therefore, the there is no dispute about the death of the petitioner's husband. In these circumstances, merely because the petitioner - widow could not file the postmortem report or 'Panchanama' her claim could not be rejected, as, it would be hyper technical to reject it in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. At this stage Shri Nishant Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel says that in fact, neither postmortem was conducted nor 'Panchnama' was prepared. If it is so, then, how the petitioner could have furnished the same before the District Magistrate. The fact remains that the charge-sheet has been filed by the State itself in the said case. He does not deny the fact that death occurring on account of such motor accidents are covered under the Government Order dated 28.2.2020. In this view of the matter, we quash the impugned order and direct the District Magistrate to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in light of what has been stated hereinabove. 7. He does not deny the fact that death occurring on account of such motor accidents are covered under the Government Order dated 28.2.2020. In this view of the matter, we quash the impugned order and direct the District Magistrate to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in light of what has been stated hereinabove. 7. The petitioner shall submit a certified copy of the charge-sheet, which has been produced before us, before the District Magistrate, Sultanpur for the said purpose whereupon he shall proceed to consider the claim of the petitioner based on the charge-sheet after getting the same verified from the concerned Police Station. The claim shall not be rejected on the ground that postmortem report and 'Panchnama' has not been filed. The fresh consideration shall be done within a period of two months and if the petitioner is otherwise found entitle to any insured amount the same shall be released within the aforesaid period. 8. The writ petition is allowed.