Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradeep Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 November, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 30 th OF NOVEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 26083 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
PRADEEP KUMAR PANDEY S/O SHRI GAURI SHANKAR
PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED VIEW POINT 14 DANISH KUNJ 2 KOLAR ROAD
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MS.SARITA VERMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
HOME VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BHOPAL
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION
SHYAMALA HILLS, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. ARTI BANSAL D/O SHREE DEEPAK BANSAL, AGED
ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO. 458-25 VILKING
LANE, ETOBICOKE ONTARIO (OTHER)
5. AMBER (ARTI BANSALS BOYFRIEND) S/O NOT
M ENTION R/O FLAT NO. 458-25 VILKING LANE,
ETOBICOKE ONTARIO (OTHER)
6. DEEPAK BANSAL S/O NOT MENTION R/O BANSAL
BHAVAN, GALI ABDULLAH, BILLARI, DISTRICT
MURADABAD (UTTAR PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
SAN
7. SANJAY SHUKLA S/O LATE SHRI R.P. SHUKLA R/O
Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF H.NO. 48, TILAK NAGAR, BAWADIYA KALAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
Date: 2022.12.05 18:22:28 IST
2
8. ARTI BANSAL (UNCLE) D/O PRADEEP BANSAL R/O
BANSAL BHAVAN, GALI ABDULLAH, BILLARI,
DISTRICT MURADABAD (UTTAR PRADESH)
9. ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
LTD. UNIT NO. 1A AND 2A, RAHEJA TIPCO PLAZA,
RANI SATI MARG, MALAD (EAST), MUMBAI
REGD. OFFICE ICICI PRULIFE TOWER, 1089,
APPASAHEB MARATHE MARG. PRABHADEVI,
MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI V.P.TIWARI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-
i) Call for the entire records pertaining to the present case.
ii) Direct the S.H.O. Shyamala Hills to produce diary and mobile phone of deceased before the Hon'ble Court.
iii) Grant stay order against the Insurance Company for not releasing the insurance claim.
iv) Grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner's son Sourabh Pandey had committed suicide on 1.7.2022 at Hotel Lake View Ashoka Bhopal being tortured and instigated by his wife for the property and insurance company of Rs.1 Crores. The petitioner tried to lodge FIR at Police Station Shyamala Hills, Bhopal, but the same was not registered.
Signature Not Verified SANMost likely the wife of the deceased would claim insurance amount from Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF Date: 2022.12.05 18:22:28 IST the respondent no.9, therefore, a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued 3 commanding the respondent no.9 not to release the claim amount until and unless the matter is investigated by the police or by an independent agency.
A query was raised by this Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to maintainability of such petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the fact that the respondent/Insurance Company which is a private company whether the same falls within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and whether such directions can be issued.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents/Insurance Company though is a private Insurance Company, who is discharging the public duty or positive obligation of a public nature, therefore, the writ is maintainable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the respondent no.9 /Insurance Company is under the control of the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority, IRDA, which is a public body and as such directions can be issued to the Insurance company.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
This Court is of the view that petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable even if the respondents/Insurance Company is under the regulatory control of I.R.D.A. which does not mean that any private Insurance company carrying on the business or commercial activity or business is discharging any public function or public duty. This Court is of the view that the private insurance company carrying on insurance business, cannot be termed as an institution or a company carrying on any statutory or Signature Not Verified public duty. Merely regulatory provisions to ensure such activity carried on by SAN Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF private bodies to work within a discipline do not confer any such status upon Date: 2022.12.05 18:22:28 IST the company nor put any such obligation upon it which may be enforced 4 through issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Such issue came up for consideration before a coordinate Bench of this court in W.P.No.8074/2016 (Gwalior Bench) wherein similar claim was rejected. The petitioner therein had challenged the order in Writ Appeal No.564/2017 (Gwalior Bench). The writ appellate court vide order dated 10.2.2017 dismissed the writ appeal affirming the order passed by the learned Single Bench.
Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since respondent no.9 is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, no interference can be made by invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, petitioner is free to approach the Insurance Company to claim compensation in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE HS Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF Date: 2022.12.05 18:22:28 IST