GULAM HUSSAIN RAHIM KADIWALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition arises in view of the rejection of the petitioner's claim for insurance amount available to a farmer/farmer's family upon accident or death of a farmer under the Life Insurance Protection Scheme. The claim came to be rejected on the ground that the application for the insurance amount was made after the prescribed period of 90 days. The petitioner was conveyed the decision by communication dated 13.3.2003 by the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Extension). Aggrieved by the said decision rejecting the claim, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(2.) AS noted above, the claim of the petitioner for insurance amount has been raised in light of the Government's policy under which the Government lodged the Insurance Scheme for farmers under which an agriculturist/farmer, as defined under the Scheme/Policy, would be entitled for insurance amount upon accident or death, as the case may be, subject to other terms and conditions of the Scheme. The son of the petitioner died on 23.10.2002 because of an accident. Therefore, around February 2003, the petitioner made a claim for the insurance amount. It appears that by virtue of the G.R. dated 12.1.1996 by which the Scheme was introduced, the time limit for making an application was prescribed. AS per the provision under the said GR, the time limit to make application was 30 days. It further appears that by subsequent G.R. dated 23.12.1999, the time limit for making application was enhanced from 30 days to 60 days and the said limit was again reviewed and the time limit was enhanced to 90 days by virtue of G.R. dated 24.1.2002. By the said G.Rs. the insurance amount was also enhanced to Rs.50,000/- and then to Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner, in light of such subsequent G.Rs. enhancing the period from 30 days to 60 days and thereafter to 90 days for making application for the insurance amount has claimed that the prescription of the time limit is not mandatory, but is only directory and the competent authority can, in appropriate case, condone the delay and consider and grant the application for insurance amount upon being satisfied about the genuineness of the reasons, however, without exercising such discretion, the petitioner's application came to be rejected by order dated 13.3.2003. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed that his application deserves to be considered by the competent authority and the competent authority ought to take decision of condoning the delay in making an application or rejecting such request. Though an appropriate decision deserves to be taken after consideration of relevant aspects which, however, have not been considered only on the ground that the policy does not provide for extension of time or relaxation in prescribed time limit.

(3.) MRS. M.L.Shah, learned AGP for the respondent No.1, and Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent No.2, have submitted that the competent authority would take decision in accordance with the terms of the policy was prevailing when the application was made. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 also submitted that the competent authority had never received any application or request to condone the delay in making the application and that therefore, there was no occasion for the authority to take decision, however, if at all the petitioner so desires, he may make such application, which would be considered by the competent authority in accordance with the relevant policy.