Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUBHASHAN REDDY
Lakshmi Agencies - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 01-19-94
TORTIOUS ACTS - PUBLIC LAW REMEDY - STATE LIABILITY - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS VIOLATION - ARTICLE 21 - STATE ACTION - NEGLIGENCE - COMPENSATION - EX-GRATIA RELIEF - PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS' ACTS - VICARIOUS LIABILITY - ARTICLE 300-A - CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE - ARTICLE 14, 19(E) AND (G) - DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY - IMMUNITY OF STATE FOR OFFICERS' ACTIONS - SOVEREIGN POWERS - STATUTORY FUNCTIONS - ILLEGAL ACTS - DAMAGES - LIABILITY OF STATE - SCOPE OF ARTICLE 21 - STATE INACTION - WILFUL NEGLIGENCE - CULPABLE INACTION - POLICE PROTECTION - ANTICIPATION OF VIOLENCE - PREVENTIVE MEASURES - HYPOTHETICAL BASIS - WELFARE STATE - LAW AND ORDER PROBLEM - TACKLING DUTY - FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTY - POSITIVE STATE ACTION - VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT - STRETCHING OF ARTICLE 21 - SERVANTS OF STATE - DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS - ABSENCE OF NEGLIGENCE - EX-GRATIA PAYMENT - SYMPATHETIC VIEW - EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - NO ADMISSION OF GUILT - PRESUMPTION OF STATE MACHINERY FAILURE - CRIMINAL OR ILLEGAL ACTS BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS - STATE LIABILITY - DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN DAMAGE AND STATE ACTION - CULPABLE ACTION OF STATE OR SERVANTS - PRIVATE LAW REMEDY IN COMMON LAW COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Following the murder of MLA Vangaveeti Mohanaranga Rao, arson and looting took place in the area, resulting in property and business losses for the petitioners. The petitioners sought compensation from the State and Central Governments, alleging violation of their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(e) and (g), 21, and 300-A of the Indian Constitution due to the negligence of the State and its officers in preventing the violence.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that there was no negligence on the part of the State or its officers in tackling the law and order situation. The violence was caused by private miscreants, and the State took swift action to control the situation and bring it under control. The Court further held that the State is not liable to pay compensation for the tortious acts of private individuals and that the petitioners' remedy lies in invoking the private law remedy in a common law court against the miscreants.
Issues: 1. Whether the State is liable to pay compensation for the tortious acts of private individuals. 2. Whether the State's failure to prevent the violence constituted a violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(e) and (g), 21, and 300-A of the Indian Constitution. 3. Whether the State is immune from liability for the actions of its officers.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The State is not liable to pay compensation for the tortious acts of private individuals. 2. The State's failure to prevent the violence did not constitute a violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(e) and (g), 21, and 300-A of the Indian Constitution. 3. The State is not immune from liability for the actions of its officers, but such liability arises only when the officers' actions are traceable to sovereign powers delegated to them and result in a violation of a fundamental right.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed.
( 1 ) IS the public law remedy available for the tortious acts of the private individuals and whether the State is liable to pay compensation for such tortious acts of the private indiiduals? - This is the question which has to be answered in these cases.
( 2 ) THESE writ petitions which are several in number seek for directions for payment of compensation to the petitioners for loss suffered to their properties as also business on account of arson and looting which took-place on 26-12-1988 in the aftermath of the murder of the Local MLA - Mr. Vangaveeti Mohanaranga Rao. The respondents are the State Government and its authorities and also the Central Government in some cases.
( 3 ) MR. Vangaveeti Mohanaranga Rao, then a sitting Member of the A. P. Legislative Assembly, was murdered by his opposite faction in the earliy hours of 26-12-1988. When the news of the said murder spread, there was sudden eruption of violence and immediately curfew was imposed in the concerned areas restricing the movements. But, nevertheless, at some places, acts of arson and looting were committed by private individuals/miscreants. However, after some time, the matter was brought under control by the police.
( 4 ) THE then Government deemed fit to grant some immediate relief measures to rehabilitate the aggrieved persons to the extent possible. That was in the shape of interest-free loans, rebuilding of the houses or repairs, as the situation demanded for weaker sections and for others ex-gratia payment of Rs. 15,000/-each. The persons who insured their properties got some relief from insurance authorities. Some of the petitioners are among the same, but, they are not satisfied as the claims made by them were accepted by the insurance authorities only partly. The petitioners are also not satisfied with the reliefs provided by the Government and insist upon the payment of compensation on account of the loss to their properties and business due to arson and looting by the miscreants. Different figures are mentioned in each of the writ petitions basing upon the damage sustained.
( 5 ) THE premise on which the writ petitions are filed seeking relief against the respondents, be it State Government or its officers or the Central Government, is that by reason of the spree of looting and arson directed against their properties, the petitioners have suffered heavy damages not only of the properties, but also in their business and this has happened because of the negligence of the State and its officers and as such, their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 (e) and (g), 21 and the constitutional guarantee under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India have been violated and that as such, the respondents are liable to compensate for the same. The above pleas made by the petitioners have been controverted by the respondents by filing counter to the effect that there is no negligence on the part of the respondents and that the petitioners have suffered damages to their properties and business on account of arson and looting by unsocial elements who are all private individuals and that the respondents have taken all possible steps to prevent the same and also imposed the curfew and that the situation was brought under control and for any losses or damage sustained by the petitioners, the respondents are not liable as no vicarious liability arises for the respondents if the private individuals indulged in arson and violence. It is further stated in the counter that the Government, for immediate rehabilitation of the persons affected including the petitioners, has provided the following reliefs:1. G. O. Rt. No. 104, General Administration (General-B) Department, dated 7-1-1989. (a) Governmenthave sanctioned following reliefs to the kin of those killed or injured etc. , in the riots and police firing. (i) Ex-gratia of Rs. 10,000/- to the next of kin of those killed in riots and police firing. (ii) Ex-gratia of an amount of Rs. 10,000/- t
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.