Patna High Court
BiharversusSuresh Sah
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The 2021 notification was in force at the time of the accident and, being non‑retrospective, obliges the respondents to pay the petitioner the full Rs 5 lakh ex‑gratia, with the balance of Rs 4.75 lakh to be disbursed.
Summary
The petitioner Suresh Sah sought compensation for the death of his son in a hit‑and‑run accident on 21 March 2022. He claimed entitlement to an ex‑gratia amount of Rs 5 lakh under the Bihar Motor Vehicle (Amendment‑1) Rules, 2021 (Notification No. 11‑08‑2021), which was in force at the time of the accident, and had already received Rs 25,000 under the 1989 Solatium Scheme. The State argued that the notification had been stayed by earlier writ orders and later repealed, limiting the claim to Rs 25,000. The Court held that the 2021 notification was valid and enforceable for accidents occurring before its repeal, that the stay did not extinguish the petitioner’s right, and that the repeal was not retrospective. Consequently, the petitioner was entitled to the full Rs 5 lakh, with the balance of Rs 4.75 lakh directed to be paid by the District Magistrate. The State’s letters‑patent appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Bihar Motor Vehicle (Amendment‑1) Rules, 2021 providing Rs 5 lakh ex‑gratia for hit‑and‑run deaths applied to an accident that occurred on 21 March 2022.
- Whether the stay of operation of the 2021 notification by the Court barred the claim for compensation.
- Whether the subsequent notification of 20 Oct 2023 repealing the 2021 rules had retrospective effect.
- What amount of compensation is payable under the Bihar Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Act versus the Solatium Scheme, 1989.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 161
Subjects
- ex gratia compensation
- hit and run
- motor accident claim
- stay of notification
- retrospective effect
- Solatium Scheme 1989
- Bihar transport department
- letters patent appeal
- interim compensation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.77 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.316 of 2024
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Transport, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The State Transport Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah.
5. The District Transport Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah.
6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah.
7. The Station House Officer, Jagdishpur, District- West Champaran, Bettiah.
... ... Appellants
Versus
Suresh Sah Son of Late Badelal Sah, Resident of Village- Baniyapatti, Ward
No.8, Jagdishpur, P.O. Jagdishpur, Police Station- Nautan (Jagdishpur),
District- West Champaran.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mrs. Shweta Anand, AC to GP-13
For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 28-04-2026
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the State
of Bihar challenging the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the
learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 316 of 2024 directing the
District Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah to pay a sum of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.77 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026
2/17
Rs. 4,75,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Seventy-Five Thousand
Only) to the writ petitioner within a period of eight weeks from
the date of the order, failing which the District Magistrate shall
not draw his salary.
2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the writ
petitioner Suresh Sah seeking for the following relief(s):
“i) For issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the Letter No. 444
dated 05.04.2023 by which the claim of the
petitioner for compensation under Bihar
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Act has
been kept in abeyance.
ii) For issuance of writ directing the
respondents to grant the
compensation/interim compensation/ex-
gratia in accordance with law to the
petitioner.
iii) For any other relief/reliefs for which the
petitioner is entitled for in the eye of law.”
3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that on
21.03.2022 at about 10:15 p.m., his son Manjit Kumar died in a
road accident due to rash driving of an unknown truck near
Hero Honda Agency, Jagdishpur and in connection with such
accident, Nautan (Jagdishpur) P.S. Case No. 158 of 2022 was
registered on 22.03.2022 under sections 279 and 304A of the
Indian Penal Code against an unknown truck driver.
During the course of investigation, the dead body of
the son of the writ petitioner was sent for post mortem
Patna High Court L.P.A No.77 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026
3/17
examination and Death Certificate was also issued. The S.H.O.,
Jagdishpur, Bettiah, District - West Champaran asked the writ
petitioner to submit the required documents which were handed
over to the S.H.O. to do the needful with regard to the
compensation.
Thereafter, Form Nos. C-1 and C-4 were handed over
to the writ petitioner by the officials of the District Transport
Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah and the writ petitioner was
supposed to submit such Forms before the Sub-Divisional
Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah for claim of compensation.
Accordingly, the claim applications in the prescribed form were
submitted on 06.01.2023 before the concerned authority. The
writ petitioner approached the authorities on various occasions
for release of the compensation amount, but having found no
succour, he filed his application before the Public Grievance
Cell on 16.03.2023. Thereafter, the District Transport Officer,
West Champaran, Bettiah by Letter No. 444 dated 05.04.2023
informed the District Public Grievance Redressal Officer, West
Champaran, Bettiah, that due to the stay of operation of
Notification Nos. 683 and 684 by this Court in the writ
petitions, the compensation could not be granted.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that in view of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.77 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026
4/17
the nature of orders passed by this Court on 29.06.2022 and
21.12.2022 in C.W.J.C. No. 2183 of 2022 and other analogous
cases, there was no embargo in granting interim
compensation/ex-gratia amount before the determination of the
final amount of compensation.
5. After issuance of notice, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5
filed the counter affidavit, which was duly sworn by the District
Transport Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah, wherein, the
following stand was taken:
“7. That in compliance the District Transport
Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah vide his
Letter No.444 dated 05.04.2023 has
submitted his report mentioning therein
that the Hon'ble High Court vide order
dated 21.12.2022 passed in CWJC
No.3362/2022 and other analogous cases
has stayed the operation of gazette
notification nos.683 and 684 dated
11.08.2021 and public notice dated
01.12.2021, which has been communicated
by the Transport Department vide his letter
no.9876 dated 27.12.2022 (Annexure-P/7
of the writ application).
8. That considering the aforesaid report the
DPGRO has disposed of application of the
writ petitioner vide order dated
06.04.2023, whereby and whereunder the
DPGRO has suggested the writ petitioner
to wait for the order of the Hon'ble High
Court.
9. That it is pertinent to mention here that vide
notification no.684 dated 11.08.2021 the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.77 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026
5/17
Transport Department, Bihar has issued
gazette notification namely Motor Vehicle
(Amendment-1) Rules, 2021. Under rule
225F of this rule, amendment has been
inserted regarding Hit & Run Cases,
whereunder certain amendments has been
made. It is also mentioned in the
notification that the notification will be
given effect since 15.09.2021. Over the
time it has been deleted by the department
in light of CWJC No.3362/2022.
10. That it is most humbly submitted that CWJC
No.3362/2022, has been disposed of by the
Hon'ble High Court vide order dated
28.11.2023, whereby and whereunder the
Hon'ble Court has directed that if any
compensation remains to be paid, which
payment was interdicted only by virtue of
the pendency of the instant writ petitions
and the interim order passed therein, the
same would be paid as expeditiously as
possible by the District Magistrates to the
victims of the accident or their dependents.
11. That it is further most humbly submitted
that the authority concerned has perused
the matter and found that matter at hand is
covered under Solatium Scheme, 1989
because date of death of the son of writ
petitioner was 21.03.2022, (prior to
01.04.2022) hence vide letter no.168 dated
01.02.2024 a report has been sought from
the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bettiah Sadar
(claims Enquiry Officer under the scheme).
12. That considering the aforesaid direction the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Bettiah Sadar vide
his letter no.17 dated 03.02.2024 has sent
his recommendation for payment of
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakh
Rupees).
Patna High Court L.P.A No.77 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026
6/17
13. That it is most humbly submitted that, after
receipt of the recommendation of Sub-
Divisional Officer, Bettiah Sadar, the
authority concerned has perused the matter
and found that matter at hand is covered
with Solatium Scheme, 1989 under which
Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) is
allowed as compensation as death claim,
hence assigning the reasons therein vide
sanction order dated 05.02.2024 contained
in memo no.43/transport, Rs.25,000/- has
been sanctioned in favour of the writ
petitioner and same has been
communicated to the Lead Insurer i.e. New
India Assurance Company Ltd. for
payment.”
6. A supplementary counter affidavit was also filed by
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, wherein it is stated as follows:
“3. That this supplementary counter affidavit is
being filed in compliance to the order
dated 30.04.2024, passed by this Hon'ble
Court in the instant matter, whereby and
whereunder this Hon'ble Court has been
pleased to direct the counsel for the State
to produce the letter no.5097 dated
18.08.2021, issued by the Transport
Department, Bihar.
4. That in compliance to the aforesaid order a
copy of letter no.5097 dated 18.08.2021,
issued by the Transport Department, Bihar.
5. That with regard to the aforesaid letter it is
most humbly submitted that the letter
no.5097 dated 18.08.2021 has been issued
by the department in pursuance to
notification no.684 dated 11.08.2021 by
which Gazette Notification namely Motor
Vehicle (Amendment-1) Rules, 2021 has
Patna High Court L.P.A No.77 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026
7/17
been issued giving effect from 15.09.2021.
Over the time the said notification was
deleted by the department in light of the
CWJC No.3362/2022 and other analogous
cases.”
7. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 further filed the second
supplementary counter affidavit, wherein it is stated as follows:
“3. That this supplementary counter affidavit is
being filed in compliance to the order
dated- 24/06/2024, passed by this Hon'ble
Court in the instant matter, whereby and
where under this Hon'ble Court has been
pleased to direct the counsel for the State
to produce notification issued by the
department, deleting the Circular dated
18.08.2021 and also copy of the final
judgment passed in writ petition bearing
CWJC No. 3362 of 2022.
4. That in compliance to the aforesaid order it
is most humbly submitted that
department's letter no. 5097, dated-
18/08/2021 is not a Circular, but a
directive letter all the District Magistrates,
Senior issued to all the Superintendent of
Police/Superintendent of Police of Bihar
State to organize a training programme at
district level so that the Bihar Motor
Vehicle (Amendment-1) Rule, 2021 and
Bihar Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Amendment-1) Rules, 2021 shall be given
effect from 15/09/2021.
5. That in compliance of the order dated-
24/06/2024, passed by the Hon'ble Court
in the matter, final judgment dated-
28/11/2023 passed in writ petition bearing
CWJC No. 3362 of 2022, is being annexed
herewith this supplementary counter
Patna High Court L.P.A No.77 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026
8/17
affidavit.
6. That it is most humbly pertinent to mention
here that under Solatium Scheme, 1989
compensation of Rs. 25,000/- had been
sanctioned to the writ petitioner. It is
further submitted that vide Cheque No.
582188 dated-13/06/2024 aforesaid
amount has been paid to the writ
petitioner.”
8. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned
counsel for the respective parties and considering the materials
placed on record has been pleased to hold as follows:
“8. I have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the materials on
record from which it is apparent that the
aforesaid notification dated 11.08.2021,
issued by the Transport Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna, postulates
that in a hit and run case, in cases of
death, a sum of Rs. 5 lakh, by way of ex
gratia amount, would be paid to the next of
kin of the deceased and moreover, the said
notification dated 11.08.2021 has though
been repealed by a subsequent notification
dated 20.10.2023, however, with effect
from 26.10.2023, hence undeniably during
the intervening period, the aforesaid
notification dated 11.08.2021 was legally
valid, enforceable, applicable and binding
upon the respondents, thus the petitioner is
entitled to be paid a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, by
way of ex gratia amount.
9. Consequently, I deem it fit and proper to
direct the District Magistrate, West
Champaran at Bettiah to pay the balance
amount of Rs. 4,75,000 to the petitioner,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.77 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026
9/17
within a period of eight weeks from today,
failing which he shall not draw his
salary.”
9. The learned counsel appearing for the State
contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes
of law. She argued that there is no dispute that the son of the
writ petitioner met with a road accident which took place on
21.03.2022 at about 10:15 p.m., and that he died on account of
such accident and Nautan (Jagdishpur) Police Station Case No.
158 of 2022 was registered in connection with such accidental
death.
According to the learned State Counsel, the Gazette
notification dated 11.08.2021 was issued by the Transport
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna vide ‘Bihar Motor
Vehicle (Amendment-1) Rules, 2021’, which was made
effective from 15.09.2021 and the amended section 225-F(2)
provided for the payment of interim compensation to the tune of
Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) to the dependent of
the deceased in the event of death and Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand Only) to the person sustained grievous hurt from
the Bihar Vehicle Accident Assistance Fund.
It is argued that the particular notification was the
subject matter of challenge before this Court in C.W.J.C. No.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.77 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026
10/17
2183 of 2022 (Sandeep Raj -Vrs.- State of Bihar & Ors.) and
other analogous cases, and the Division Bench of this Court
vide order dated 21.12.2022 has been pleased to stay the
operation of the Gazette Notification Nos. 683 and 684 dated
11.08.2021 so also the Public Notice dated 01.12.2021 and
further directed the State Government to revisit the issue.
It is further argued that in compliance of the order
passed by this Court, the State Government revisited the earlier
Notification dated 11.08.2021 and issued fresh Notification
dated 20.10.2023 which was published in the Bihar Gazette,
dated 26.10.2023 to be made effective from that day and it was
styled as ‘Bihar Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal
(Establishment and Service Condition) Rules, 2023’, whereby
and whereunder, the amendment made in Rule 225-A to 225-F
and Rule 226 to Rule 247 was repealed.
It is further argued that the payment of Rs. 5 Lakh as
interim compensation amount could be made to the dependent
of the deceased by way of interim arrangement in terms of
section 225-F of the Gazette notification dated 11.08.2021
which deals with hit and run cases and since the operation of the
notification was stayed and it was ultimately repealed by the
State Government, the writ petitioner could not be granted the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.77 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026
11/17
interim compensation amount.
She further argued that the writ petitioner is only
entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five
Thousand Only) as per the Solatium Scheme, 1989 and in view
of section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, amended from
time to time, the amount of compensation for hit and run claim
has been fixed from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 2 Lakh in cases of
death. However, the said amendment came into effect from
01.04.2022. Hence, the writ petitioner shall be entitled only for
a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as the death of son of the writ petitioner
has taken place on 21.03.2022.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other
hand submitted that C.W.J.C. No. 2183 of 2022 and other
analogous cases were filed in a different context altogether. The
stay order that was passed has nothing to do with grant of
compensation to the writ petitioner and in fact, the subsequent
notification dated 20.10.2023 repealing the earlier notification
dated 11.08.2021 was having no retrospective operation and
therefore, such repeal which came into effect from 26.10.2023
will have no bearing regarding payment of Rs. 5 Lakh to the
writ petitioner by way of ex gratia amount on account of death
of his son in a hit and run case as the accident and death took
Patna High Court L.P.A No.77 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026
12/17
place on 21.03.2022.
11. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, at first, we want to highlight
certain undisputed facts. There is no dispute that the accident, in
question, in which the son of the writ petitioner died, took place
on 21.03.2022 and the death also took place on the same day
and in connection with such accident and death, the case was
registered at Nautan (Jagdishpur) Police Station. It is also not
disputed that Gazette notification was published on 11.08.2021
by the Transport Department, Government of Bihar, Patna,
which was styled as ‘Bihar Motor Vehicle (Amendment-1)
Rules, 2021’ and it was made effective from 15.09.2021 and the
same was in force till it was repealed by issuance of a fresh
notification dated 20.10.2023, which was made effective from
26.10.2023 after its publication in the Bihar Gazette on that day.
Thus, the notification dated 11.08.2021 was in force as on the
date on which the accident and the death took place which was
obviously much before the issuance of fresh Gazette
notification.
12. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the
view that the stay of operation of the Gazette notification by this
Court in the writ petition for a particular period, is not a ground
Patna High Court L.P.A No.77 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026
13/17
to debar the claim of the writ petitioner to get the relief as per
the said notification. It is pertinent to note that though the
Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.12.2022
passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2183 of 2022 and other analogous cases
stayed the operation of Gazette notification Nos. 683 and 684
dated 11.08.2021, but vide order dated 28.11.2023, while
disposing of the writ petitions, made it clear that if any
compensation amount remains to be paid, which payment was
interdicted only by virtue of the pendency of the writ petitions
and the interim order passed therein, the same shall be paid as
expeditiously as possible by the District Magistrates to the
victims of the accident or their dependents.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.
Mahendran -Vrs.- State of Karnataka, reported in (1990) 1
Supreme Court Cases 411, has held as follows:
“5. It is well settled rule of construction that
every statute or statutory rule is
prospective unless it is expressly or by
necessary implication made to have
retrospective effect. Unless there are
words in the statute or in the Rules
showing the intention to affect existing
rights the rule must be held to be
prospective. If a rule is expressed in
language which is fairly capable of
either interpretation, it ought to be
construed as prospective only. In the
absence of any express provision or
Patna High Court L.P.A No.77 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026
14/17
necessary intendment, the rule cannot
be given retrospective effect except in
matter of procedure ...”
In the case of Zile Singh -Vrs.- State of Haryana,
reported in (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 1, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held as follows:
“13. It is a cardinal principle of
construction that every statute is
prima facie prospective unless it is
expressly or by necessary
implication made to have a
retrospective operation. But the rule
in general is applicable where the
object of the statute is to affect
vested rights or to impose new
burdens or to impair existing
obligations. Unless there are words
in the statute sufficient to show the
intention of the legislature to affect
existing rights, it is deemed to be
prospective only — “nova
constitutio futuris formam imponere
debet non praeteritis” — a new law
ought to regulate what is to follow,
not the past. (See Principles of
Statutory Interpretation by Justice
G.P. Singh, 9th Edn., 2004 at p.
438.) It is not necessary that an
express provision be made to make
a statute retrospective and the
presumption against retrospectivity
may be rebutted by necessary
implication especially in a case
where the new law is made to cure
an acknowledged evil for the benefit
of the community as a whole (ibid.,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.77 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026
15/17
p. 440).”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. -Vrs.-
G.S. Dall and Flour Mills, reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme
Court Cases 150, has held as follows:
“21. ...In view of this interpretation, the
1987 amendment has the effect of
rescinding the exemption granted
by the 1981 notification in respect
of the industries mentioned by it.
Section 12 is clear that, while a
notification under it can be
prospective or retrospective, only
prospective operation can be given
to a notification rescinding an
exemption granted earlier. In the
interpretation, we have placed on
the notification, the July 3, 1987
notification cannot be treated as
one merely clarifying an ambiguity
in the earlier one and hence
capable of being retrospective; it
enacts the rescission of the earlier
exemption and, hence, can operate
only prospectively. It cannot take
away the exemption conferred by
the earlier notification.”
14. In view of the final order passed by the Division
Bench on 28.11.2023 in the writ petitions and the judgments of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above along with the
fact that the repeal notification dated 20.10.2023 has got no
retrospective effect, we are of the humble view that the learned
Patna High Court L.P.A No.77 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026
16/17
Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the
notification dated 11.08.2021 was legally valid, enforceable,
applicable and binding upon the respondents and therefore, the
writ petitioner is entitled to be paid a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs by
way of ex gratia amount and since Rs. 25,000/- was earlier paid
to the writ petitioner, therefore, a direction was made to the
District Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah to pay the
balance amount of Rs. 4,75,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Seventy-
Five Thousand Only) to the writ petitioner.
15. We find no perversity or error in the impugned
order and thus in the limited scope of interference in the intra-
court appeal, which is in the nature of corrective jurisdiction and
rarely used to correct errors and if the Hon’ble Single Judge’s
order is found to be perverse, illegal, irrational or contrary to the
settled law, we are of the view that the Letters Patent Appeal
filed by the State challenging the impugned order is devoid of
merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.
16. It is stated by the learned counsel for the
respondent/writ petitioner that in spite of the impugned order
passed by the learned Single Judge, the balance amount of Rs.
4,75,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Seventy-Five Thousand Only)
has not yet been paid by the District Magistrate, West
Patna High Court L.P.A No.77 of 2025 dt.28-04-2026
17/17
Champaran at Bettiah to the writ petitioner within the prescribed
period even though no stay order has been passed in this Letters
Patent Appeal.
In view of such submissions, the District Magistrate,
West Champaran at Bettiah is hereby directed to disburse the
balance amount of Rs. 4,75,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Seventy-
Five Thousand Only) to the writ petitioner within a period of
four weeks from today positively.
We make it clear that this particular amount is to paid
as interim compensation amount and it is open to the writ
petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law for
claiming higher compensation.
17. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
shailendra/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 30.04.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…