SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam, CJI., Ranjan Gogoi, J.
Dr. S. Rajaseekaran - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2012 with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 235 of 2012.
Decided On : 21-10-2013
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 32 and 142 - Assistance to accident/injured victims - Expert advise/consultation from Doctor - Prayed for framing of appropriate guidelines -Petitioner and learned ASG for respondent by order dated constituted an Expert Committee headed by Justice V.S. Agarwal, former Judge, Delhi High Court as Chairman and the Secretary or his nominee, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways as Nodal Officer - In said order Court also directed Committee to receive expert advise/consultation from Collaborating Centre for Injury Prevention and Safety Promotion, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), if they deem so necessary - Committee submitted its interim report dated and prayed for further time in respect of questions posed by this Court at Nos. 1, 7 and 8 - In meanwhile, by letter dated addressed to this Court, Justice V.S. Agarwal, conveyed his inability to continue as Chairman of Committee due to personal difficulties - In view of same, Court accept said request – Held, Court initially noted that Writ Petition (C) No. filed can also be referred to the same Committee to ascertain their expert views when both writ petitions were posted for hearing, on going through issues raised relief sought for and the materials placed - Committee has to submit its report only in respect of questions posed by this Court at Nos. 1, 7 and 8 Court request remaining committee members to pursue and submit its report with reference to above issues for which we extend time by another 3 (three) months – Court also nominate Additional Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs as Ad-hoc Chairman of Committee for completion of report - De-tag Writ Petition (C) No. and list for further hearing - In meanwhile, Union of India is permitted to file reply affidavit highlighting their stand - Insofar as Writ Petition (C) No. is concerned Additional Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs is appointed as Ad-hoc Chairman of Committee and allowed 3 (three) months time to submit a Final Report including questions posed by this Court at Nos. 1, 7 and 8 - Put up after 3 (three) month – Order accordingly.
ORDER :
P. Sathasivam, C.J.I. - Writ Petition (Civil) No. 235 of 2012:
Savelife Foundation - the petitioner in the above-said petition has prayed for framing of appropriate guidelines, in terms of para 10(G) of the writ petition, in respect of 'bystanders' and 'first responders' who provide assistance to accident/injured victims, in exercise of this Court's power under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution of India.
2. Based on the above prayer, this Court, after hearing Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned ASG for the respondent, by order dated 11.12.2012, constituted an Expert Committee, headed by Justice V.S. Agarwal, former Judge, Delhi High Court as the Chairman and the Secretary or his nominee, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways as the Nodal Officer. In the said order, this Court also directed the Committee to receive expert advise/consultation from Dr. G. Guru Raj, Collaborating Centre for Injury Prevention and Safety Promotion, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Bangalore, if they deem so necessary.
3. Pursuant to the said direction, the Committee submitted its interim report dated 05.03.2013 and prayed for further time in respect of questions posed by this Court at Nos. 1, 7 and 8. In the meanwhile, by letter dated 02.07.2013, addressed to this Court, Justice V.S. Agarwal, conveyed his inability to continue as the Chairman of the Committee due to personal difficulties. In view of the same, we accept the said request.
4. Subsequently, one Dr. S. Rajaseekaran also filed a petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 295 of 2012 praying for appropriate direction(s) to Respondent No. 5-Joint Secretary, Department of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways for creation of safer roads, licencing of drivers and vehicles, enforcement of road safety, treatment of accident victims, provision of due compensation to the victims to be brought under one umbrella. He also prayed for constitution of a core road group for implementation of the various recommendations enumerated in the prayer portion of the said writ petition. This Court, vide order dated 21.08.2013, tagged both the writ petitions.
5. Though we initially noted that Writ Petition (C) No. 295 of 2012 filed by Dr. S. Rajaseekaran can also be referred to the same Committee to ascertain their expert views, on 07.10.2013, when both the writ petitions were posted for hearing, on going through the issues raised, relief sought for and the materials placed, we are of the view that the issues raised in both the writ petitions are relatively different, hence, the relief sought for in the Writ Petition (C) No. 295 of 2012 could be considered individually after hearing all the parties therein. Accordingly, we de-tag Writ Petition (C) No. 295 of 2012.
6. In view of the above conclusion, insofar as Writ Petition (C) No. 235 of 2012 is concerned, in view of the fact that the Committee has already filed an Interim Report dated 05.03.2013 and Mr. Justice V.S. Agarwal has resigned and the Committee has to submit its report only in respect of questions posed by this Court at Nos. 1, 7 and 8, we request the remaining committee members to pursue and submit its report with reference to the above issues for which we extend the time by another 3 (three) months. We also nominate Additional Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs as Ad-hoc Chairman of the Committee for completion of the report.
7. In the light of the above discussion, we pass the following order:-
(ii) Insofar as Writ Petition (C) No. 235 of 2012 is concerned, the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs is appointed as the Ad-hoc Chairman of the Committee and allowed 3 (three) months' time to submit a Final Report including the questions posed by this Court at Nos. 1, 7
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.