Kishori Lal vs The State Of U.P. And 2 Others

AFR
Reserved on 09.02.2026
Delivered on 27.02.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 2130 of 2026
Kishori Lal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shashi Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
(Per Swarupama Chaturvedi, J.)
Heard Shri Shashi Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner
1.
and Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned brief holder appearing for the State-
respondents.
The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with
2.
the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent No. 2 to pay Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioner in
view of the Government notification dated 02.08.2018 and the
government order dated 08.07.2021.
The background fact of the matter is that on 23.08.2019, wife of the
3.
petitioner, Smt. Raj Kumari, while working in an agricultural field got
snake bite and resultantly died. Subsequently, in this regard, General
Diary entry bearing No. 015 dated 24.08.2019 was recorded by the police,
wherein it was written that the deceased had died due to snake bite. On
the same day, inquest report was prepared, and the statements of the

WRIC No. 2130 of 2026
2
witnesses got recorded, which indicated that the death had occurred due to
snake bite. The postmortem examination of the deceased was also
conducted on 24.08.2019, however, the postmortem report did not
conclude the cause of death as such and recorded that the cause of death
could not be ascertained. Consequently, the viscera of the deceased was
preserved and handed over to authorities for examination.
4. Subsequently, petitioner applied for the ex gratia payment, claiming
that death of his wife was due to snake bite, which stood covered under
the Government notification dated 02.08.2018 for benefits in terms of
compensation. According to the procedure, site inspection was conducted,
during which the Lekhpal interacted with people in village, who were
present and had witnessed the incident. Thereafter, report dated
23.03.2022 was prepared and submitted by the Lekhpal. The report
recorded that people present there had stated that the death was due to
snake bite. Following this, on 30.03.2022, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Konch, District Jalaun, wrote a letter to the Additional District
Magistrate, Jalaun. The letter relied on the Lekhpal's report, mentioning
the on-site inspection and statements made by people in village, who were
present at that time. People present there, stated that the petitioner's wife
while engaged in agriculture work in her field died on 23.08.2019 due to
snake bite. However, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concluded as finding
that the case did not get covered under government notifications and,
therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to ex gratia payment. The reason
for the rejection was that postmortem report did not record the reason for
death as snake bite, whereas the report, in fact, stated that the cause of
death could not be ascertained.

WRIC No. 2130 of 2026
3
5. Petitioner also raised his grievance through the “Jansunwai Portal” by
filing online complaints bearing reference Nos. 40016522003379 and
40016522005028. He reiterated his claim that his wife had died due to
snake bite and that ex gratia payment had not been granted to him. The
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Konch, again rejected the claim of the
petitioner vide order dated 28.05.2022, referring the same Lekhpal’s
report dated 23.03.2022 and the postmortem report dated 24.08.2019. The
order also referred the Government order dated 08.07.2021, however, this
time concluded that since the death had occurred before 08.07.2021, the
case of the petitioner’s wife of her death due to snake bite would not be
covered under this notification.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the death of
the petitioner’s wife was due to snake bite and, therefore, this case was
covered under the Government notification dated 02.08.2018, and the
petitioner was entitled to ex gratia payment of Rs.4,00,000/-. He further
submitted that from the very inception, including the General Diary entry,
the inquest report, and the statements of people in village during spot
inspection by the Lekhpal, a consistent version had been that the deceased
died due to snake bite while working in the agricultural field.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order itself
referred to the report, which mentioned statements of people present at the
place of occurrence who all had supported petitioner’s statement
regarding the cause of death. It was contended that there was no material
on record suggesting any cause of death other than the snake bite and the
rejection of the claim of the petitioner was baseless for want of due
without application of mind.

WRIC No. 2130 of 2026
4
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the
postmortem report did not attribute the death to any other cause and
merely recorded that the cause of death could not be ascertained. In such
circumstances, the inability of the medical report to conclusively
determine the cause of death could not have been construed against the
petitioner, particularly when the medical evidence did not contradict the
eyewitnesses accounts. Learned counsel submitted that where there was
no conflict between medical evidence and eyewitness testimony because
postmortem report did not state any direct reason for death. He further
submitted that where the medical report did not negate the version of
eyewitnesses, the consistent and corroborated statements of eyewitnesses
deserved due weight, and the application of the petitioner should not have
been rejected stating that there was no document to support cause of death
being snake bite. He further submitted that the rejection of the petitioner’s
claim for ex gratia payment was an arbitrary decision and hence
unsustainable in law.
9. Per contra, learned brief holder appearing for the State supports the
impugned orders passed by the authorities and submitted that the same is
rightly passed in accordance with the applicable government notifications.
She contends that the petitioner failed to furnish any documentary
evidence along with his application to establish that the death of his wife
had occurred due to snake bite. She further submitted that the claim of the
petitioner cannot be considered under the subsequent Government order
dated 08.07.2021, as the death of the petitioner’s wife had taken place
much before 08.07.2021.
10. In the light of aforesaid facts and the rival submissions advanced by
the learned counsel for the parties, the question that falls for consideration

WRIC No. 2130 of 2026
5
before this Court is whether the subsequent government order dated
08.07.2021 is clarificatory to the earlier one and, being clarificatory in
nature, can be used as a external aid to understand the government
notification dated 02.08.2018 for the purpose of granting ex gratia relief
in a case where the death due to snake bite occurred on 23.08.2019.
Thereafter this court is to consider whether in the absence of a conclusive
opinion regarding the cause of death in the postmortem report, the claim
of the petitioner can be sustained on the basis of consistent and statements
of witnesses which find mention in official proceedings, particularly when
such evidence uniformly supports the petitioner’s version and the policy
in question is a welfare measure in cases of State specific disaster/ natural
calamity, which are listed in government notification.
11. To appreciate the issues that arise for consideration, it is necessary to
trace the circumstances leading to the issuance of government
notifications. State of Uttar Pradesh issued notifications to address
problem of State specific disaster in Uttar Pradesh. In this regard the first
notification was issued on 27.06.2016 bearing notification number 303/1-
11-2016-4(G)/16 providing for the modalities with respect to funds for
expenditure to be incurred from State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF).
For ready reference, relevant part of the above mentioned notification is
reproduced below:
2. Every year, a large number of lives and property are lost in the state
“
due to unseasonal heavy rains, storms, lightning and heat waves.
Therefore, in view of the above arrangement made by the Government of
India, while cancelling Government notification No. 249/1-11-2015-4
(G)/2015, dated 15.04.2015 (as amended on 16.04.2015), the Governor
is pleased to give his approval to declare unseasonal heavy rains,
storms, lightning and heat waves as state disasters.
3. Relief will be provided to the families of the persons affected by the
said State disaster as per the standards and rates fixed by the

WRIC No. 2130 of 2026
6
Government of India for the State Disaster Relief Fund.
4. Expenditure in connection with the above mentioned State Disasters
under Grant No. 51 under the Account Head "2245-Relief due to
Natural Calamity-05-State Disaster Response Fund-800-Other
Expenditure-06-Expenditure from State Disaster Response Fund-09-For
other disasters declared by the State Government Expenditure from
Disaster Response Fund-42 will be borne from other expenditure.
5. Action should be ensured as per the above decision taken by the State
Government."
(Notification is originally in Hindi)
12. Subsequently on 02.08.2018, State issued another notification bearing
notification number- UO 30/1-11-2018-4(G)/2015, where snake bite got
specifically included along with other natural calamities. For ready
reference the relevant part of the notification is reproduced below:
2. In continuation of the above arrangement made by the Government of
“
India, by Notification No. 303/1-11-2016-4 (G)/2015, dated 27.06.2016,
unseasonal heavy rainfall, lightning strikes, storm and heat wave have
been declared as State Disaster.
3. Hon’ble Governor accords approval to declare the following incidents
as State-notified disasters, in addition to the disasters declared under the
Government Notification dated 27.06.2016, namely: unseasonal heavy
rainfall, lightning, thunderstorm and heat-wave, as well as boat
accidents, snakebite , accidents during sewer cleaning, gas leakage, and
accidents resulting from falling into borewells within the State.
4. There has been an agreement in principle to declare human-wildlife
conflict a state disaster. Detailed guidelines in this regard will be issued
separately.
5. The expenditure incurred in connection with the above declared State
disasters will be borne under Grant No. 51 under the account head
"2245- Relief due to natural calamity-05-State Disaster Response Fund-
800-Other Expenditure-06-Expenditure from State Disaster Response
Fund-09-Expenditure from Disaster Response Fund for other disasters
declared by the State Government-42-Other Expenditure".
(Notification originally in Hindi)

WRIC No. 2130 of 2026
7
13. Snake bite got included in the list in the year 2018 and with the
experience, it was realized by the State that certain clarifications were
required to make the welfare scheme effectively implemented and,
therefore, the State through its additional chief secretary, has issued
clarifications, which was sent to all district magistrates by the letter No.-
157/A-11-2020-04(G)/2015-TC dated 08.07.2021. For convenience and
clarity, complete letter is reproduced below:
Very important
“
No.-157/A-11-2020-04(G)/2015-TC
From,
Manoj Kumar Singh,
Additional Chief Secretary,
Government of Uttar Pradesh.
To,
All District Magistrates,
Uttar Pradesh.
Revenue Section-11 Lucknow: Date: July 08, 2021
Subject:- Regarding the grant of ex-gratia assistance to the dependents
of persons who have died due to snakebite .
Sir,
1. In the above mentioned Government notification No. U.O.-20/Ek-11-
2018-4(G)/2015 dated 02.08.2018, snakebite has been declared a State
disaster, and it is provided that, in the event of death due to snakebite, ex-
gratia assistance of Rs. 4.00 lakh shall be granted to the dependents of
each deceased person.
2. It has come to the notice of the Government that, for the purpose of
certifying death due to snakebite, the viscera of the deceased is sent to a
forensic laboratory for examination, and during the pendency of the
viscera examination report, ex-gratia assistance is not made available in a
timely manner to the dependents of the deceased. As per the opinion of the
State Forensic Legal Cell, there is no justification for insisting upon a
viscera examination report in cases of snakebite, and it has been informed
that death due to snakebite is not established solely on the basis of a
viscera examination report.
3. In pursuance of the advice of the State Medico Legal Cell, and upon due
consideration, it has been decided that, in cases of death due to snakebite,
since the viscera examination report has no relevance, the following
procedure shall be followed for the purpose of providing ex-gratia
assistance to the dependents of the deceased:
(1) A Panchnama of the deceased should be prepared.
(2) A post-mortem examination of the deceased should be conducted.

WRIC No. 2130 of 2026
8
(3) There is no need to preserve the viscera report of the deceased after
post-mortem.
(4) In case of death due to snake bite, ex gratia assistance shall be
provided to the dependents of the deceased within a maximum period of 7
days.
4. Accordingly, I am directed to state that, in cases of death due to
snakebite, while strictly adhering to the procedure mentioned above, all
matters relating to the grant of ex-gratia assistance to the dependents of
the deceased shall be endeavoured to be disposed of within a period of 7
days.
Yours truly
(Manoj Kumar Singh)
Additional Chief Secretary."
(Letter originally in Hindi)
14. Bare reading of the above noted notifications as well as subsequent
communication leads us to infer that the underlying objective of the State
is to extend timely support to families who have lost family member due
to the circumstances contemplated therein. The scheme is in the nature of
a welfare measure intended to provide relief to persons in need.
Therefore, while determining entitlement under the scheme, rejection
based on technicalities would be antithetical to the very aim and object
sought to be achieved by the State.
15. After discussion on background and underlying principle qua purpose
of above notifications, the issue for determination is, whether the
subsequent government notification dated 08.07.2021 can be relied upon
as an external aid to understand or interpret the government notification
dated 02.08.2018. It is a well-established principle of administrative law
that subsequent instructions, circulars, or notifications can be used as
clarificatory aids in interpreting an earlier policy, particularly where the
earlier policy is beneficial in nature. Beneficial schemes or policies of the
State are required to be construed purposively and liberally to advance

WRIC No. 2130 of 2026
9
their intended objective, and not to be seen in a hyper-technical or
restrictive manner.
16. In WPIL Ltd. Ghaziabad vs Commissioner Of Central Excise,
Meerut, (2005) 3 SCC 73 , the Supreme Court, while considering the
nature and effect of clarificatory notifications, referred to its earlier
decision in CCE vs Wood Craft Products Ltd., (1995) 3 SCC 454 . The
Supreme Court observed that where a notification is clarificatory in
character, it operates retrospectively, as it does not introduce something
new but merely clarify and makes explicit what was already implicit in
the existing legal framework. The Supreme Court has held as under :
“ 15. The learned counsel for the appellant is also right in relying upon
a decision of this Court in CCE v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. [(1995) 3
SCC 454] In that case, this Court held that a clarificatory notification
would take effect retrospectively. Such a notification merely clarifies
the position and makes explicit what was implicit. Clarificatory
notifications have been issued to end the dispute between the parties.”
17. In State Bank of India vs V. Ramakrishnan , (2018) 17 SCC 394, the
Supreme Court has dealt with the issue of amendment which held to be
retrospective in nature. In this case, the Supreme Court has quoted the
judgment in case of CIT vs Vatika Township (P) Ltd. , (2015) 1 SCC 1,
observing as follows:
“ 32. Let us sharpen the discussion a little more. We may note that under
certain circumstances, a particular amendment can be treated as
clarificatory or declaratory in nature. Such statutory provisions are
labelled as “declaratory statutes”. The circumstances under which
provisions can be termed as “declaratory statutes” are explained by
Justice G.P. Singh [Principles of Statutory Interpretation, (13th Edn.,
LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2012)] in the following

WRIC No. 2130 of 2026
10
manner:
‘ Declaratory statutes. The presumption against
retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory
statutes. As stated in Craies [W.F. Craies, Craies on
Statute Law (7th Edn., Sweet and Maxwell Ltd., 1971)]
and approved by the Supreme Court (in Central Bank of
India v. Workmen [Central Bank of India v. Workmen, AIR
1960 SC 12, p. 27, para 29] ): “For modern purposes a
declaratory Act may be defined as an Act to remove doubts
existing as to the common law, or the meaning or effect of
any statute. Such Acts are usually held to be retrospective.
The usual reason for passing a declaratory Act is to set
aside what Parliament deems to have been a judicial
error, whether in the statement of the common law or in
the interpretation of statutes. Usually, if not invariably,
such an Act contains a Preamble, and also the word
“declared” as well as the word “enacted”.” But the use of
the words “it is declared” is not conclusive that the Act is
declaratory for these words may, at times, be used to
introduced new rules of law and the Act in the latter case
will only be amending the law and will not necessarily be
retrospective. In determining, therefore, the nature of the
Act, regard must be had to the substance rather than to the
form. If a new Act is “to explain” an earlier Act, it would
be without object unless construed retrospective. An
explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious
omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the
previous Act. It is well settled that if a statute is curative or
merely declaratory of the previous law retrospective
operation is generally intended. The language “shall be
deemed always to have meant” is declaratory, and is in
plain terms retrospective. In the absence of clear words
indicating that the amending Act is declaratory, it would
not be so construed when the pre-amended provision was
clear and unambiguous. An amending Act may be purely
clarificatory to clear a meaning of a provision of the
principal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory
amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect
and, therefore, if the principal Act was existing law which
the Constitution came into force, the amending Act also
will be part of the existing law.”
In view of the above principle, we are of the view that subsequent
18.
legislation or policy can be referred to as an external aid to understand an

WRIC No. 2130 of 2026
11
earlier provision, particularly when the later measure is beneficial,
clarificatory, or declaratory in nature and not creating any new right. It is
an established principle of law that later legislation or policy can
sometimes throw light on the legislative intent behind an earlier
provision, especially when the later law clarifies rather than changes the
position. Later statute, amendment, or policy may be used as an
interpretative aid if it explains or clarifies an ambiguity in the earlier law
or is declaratory or explanatory in nature or the same reflects the
legislature’s understanding of the earlier provision.
It is also a well settled principle that statements, reports, and records
19.
created at or near the time of an event carries a considerable weight in
determining facts, particularly when there is no conclusive evidence. In
the present case, the General Diary entry, the inquest report, and the
statements of witnesses recorded by the Tehsildar and other officials
immediately following the death of the petitioner’s wife constitute
contemporaneous records, consistently stating that the death occurred due
to snake bite. The postmortem report, though inconclusive, does not
contradict these records. Therefore, after applying the principle of
contemporanea expositio , consistency of statements indicate that they are
reliable evidence in determining the cause of death, and the authorities are
bound to give due weight to such contemporaneous material while
adjudicating claims under a beneficial policy. Failure to consider
contemporaneous evidence and giving undue weightage to hyper-
technical reasons like inconclusive postmortem is against well-recognized
legal principles.
Having considered this preceding issue, the next question that arises
20.
for consideration is the nature of the order/circular dated 08.07.2021

WRIC No. 2130 of 2026
12
issued by the State Government. It is clear from the bare reading of the
order that it merely clarifies as to how claims arising from snake bite
deaths should be considered under the earlier policy to make the
beneficiaries get compensation without delay. It does not impose any new
limitation, nor does it affect deaths that occurred prior to its issuance. The
principle regarding clarificatory notification is well recognized, and
according to which, a notification or circular that only elaborate the
intention of an earlier policy is to be read harmoniously with the original
notification and the subsequent notification is especially relevant in
guiding authorities on proper implementation.
21. After careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, it is evident that
the government notification dated 02.08.2018 clearly recognizes death
due to snake bite as a circumstance entitling the dependents of the
deceased to ex gratia relief. It is also apparent that the notification dated
02.08.2018 is a State-specific policy intended to aid in cases of disasters
or calamities which are not included for relief under other policies. The
said notification, therefore, contemplates relief to families affected by
specific local contingencies, including death due to snake bite.
22. The subsequent government notification dated 08.07.2021 specifically
addresses circumstances where dependents of a deceased person who died
due to snake bite were being denied or delayed ex gratia relief on
technical grounds, particularly due to the non-availability of viscera
reports. The notification explicitly clarifies that the absence of a viscera
report shall not be a ground to reject the claim and instructs the District
Magistrates across the State to ensure timely disbursement of ex gratia
relief, preferably within seven days. Bare reading of the order

WRIC No. 2130 of 2026
13
demonstrates that it is clarificatory in nature and intended to reinforce the
objective of the notification dated 02.08.2018, rather than creating any
new policy. Learned Standing Counsel’s argument justifying rejection of
the petitioner’s claim on the ground of inconclusive postmortem findings
or unavailability of the viscera report is therefore wholly untenable. The
clarificatory notification was issued precisely to prevent denial or delay of
relief to affected families on such technical grounds, ensuring that the
purpose of the policy is fulfilled.
23. In the present case, the petitioner had promptly informed the police
about the death of his wife explaining the reason of the death as well. The
General Diary entry records the cause of death as a snake bite. The
inquest proceedings and spot inspection conducted by the Lekhpal further
corroborate the petitioner’s version, with statements of eyewitnesses
confirming that the death occurred due to snake bite while the deceased
was working in the agricultural field. There is no discrepancy or conflict
in the statements recorded at any stage, and the postmortem report merely
states that the cause of death could not be ascertained, without
contradicting the consistent evidence of the eyewitnesses. In such
circumstances, the principle of contemporanea expositio is relevant here
and reliance on consistent official records should be placed to decide
petitioner’s claim.
24. Applying the principles discussed in forgoing paragraphs, it is clear
that the order dated 08.07.2021 is a guidance to interpret and implement
the notification dated 02.08.2018 in cases of death due to snake bite.
Consequently, we are of the view that the petitioner’s claim very much
fell within the ambit of the policy framework, and the authorities ought to
have considered it on that basis.

WRIC No. 2130 of 2026
14
25. In the light of the above discussion, it is evident that the petitioner is
entitled to relief under the Government notification dated 02.08.2018,
read harmoniously with the clarificatory order dated 08.07.2021, which is
brought to control possible mischief under order 02.08.2018. The
impugned rejection of the claim on technical grounds cannot be sustained
and, therefore, the order dated 02.08.2018 and 08.07.2021 are hereby
quashed. Matter is required accordingly remitted to the District
Magistrate, Jalaun, with a direction to consider the petitioner’s claim
afresh in accordance with the policy, without raising technical objections
regarding the inconclusive postmortem report or unavailability of viscera
report.
26. It is one of those cases where we find that documents speak volume of
the merit of claims for compensation set up by petitioner having discussed
the provisions contained under the Government Order and further policy
with regard to grant of compensation not depending upon the viscera report
etc., we are of the clear view that claim of compensation deserves to be
allowed.
There are authorities to the effect that if the High Court while exercising
27.
its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution finds facts of the case to
be full setting merit of the case set up by petitioner that it should not hesitate
in granting appropriate relief instead of remitting the matter for
reconsideration by the authority.
28. In our above considered view, we are supported by the recent decision of
the Supreme Court dated 10.02.2026 in the case of Mahendra Prasad
Agarwal vs. Arvind Kumar Singh and Others being SLP (C ) No. 1714 of
2025 , in which vide paragraph 13,14, and 15, the Court has observed thus:

WRIC No. 2130 of 2026
15
"13. Facts that we have recounted till now reveal a sad reflection, not our
laws, but the way we practice our laws and work our judicial remedies.
We are not be mistaken as sermonising, for such episodic disposal could
feature even in the practice of Supreme Court. Our endeavour is to ensure
that we take notice of it and adopt course correction.
14. There is no doubt about the fact that the "consider jurisprudence", so
routinely adopted these days and if we may use the expression - to throw
the ball out of the Court, is counterproductive and harms the system.
15. When a claim of a right is legal and justified, relief must follow. The
Constitutional or statutory remedies are not intended for academic
discourse. If a case deserves relief, it must be granted then and there,
unflinchingly if need be. Balancing of equities is not to be confused with
avoiding or postponing the relief. These are not matters of law, but of its
working and practice. Unlike law and its procedures, good practices that
evolve over a period of time are far more precious than written laws, as it
is in this practice that we see acceptance and internalization of the spirit
of law. It is necessary to recognize, nurture and develop good practices
which become habits. These habits come from the shared belief, values
and attitudes that breathe vitality into rule of law. Legal culture
integrates collective beliefs, fostering habits. It is necessary and in fact
compelling to keep our remedies simple, effective and efficient."
In view of above, writ petition succeeds and is . The District
29. allowed
Magistrate, Jalaun is directed to accord benefit of compensation to the
petitioner for untimely death of the deceased due to snake bite. The
District Magistrate, shall pass the order within a period of six weeks from
the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
February 27, 2026
Mukesh Kumar/#Vikram/-

Digitally signed by :-
VIKRAM GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Digitally signed by :-
VIKRAM GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad