SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(AP) 1365

2011 (1) ALT 667 (D.B.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
A.GOPAL REDDY and P. DURGA PRASAD, JJ.
State of A.P. rep. by its Chief Secretary, Hyderabad and others
v.
M/s. J.K. Traders of Ramakrishna 70 MM Theatre, NTR Estates, Hyderabad rep. by its Proprietor N. Jayakrishna
W.A.Nos.1407 of 2000 and 1175 of 2010
Decided on 31-12-2010

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Sriram, Spl. Govt. Pleader for the Additional Advocate General, Counsel for the Appellants in W.A.No. 1407 of 2000 and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in W.A. No. 1175 of 2010.
Mr. 1. Mallikarjuna Sharma, Counsel for the Appellants in W.A.No. 1175 of 2010.
Mr. M.R.K. Chowdary, Senior Counsel for Mr. P.V. Mahesh Counsel for the Respondent in W.A.No. 1407 of 2000 and for 1st Respondent in W.A.No. 1175 of 2010.

Headnote:A) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Articles 226, 21 and 300-A :- Writ petition filed by NTR estate management for payment of compensation from the Government towards the loss sustained by its properties by the riots and arson in the aftermath of assassination of Rajiv Gandhi under vicarious liability for the failure of its police force on duty. Public law remedy is available for the citizens when his livelihood is deprived under Article 21 of the Constitution and also when is wrongly deprived of his property without due process of law. However due to the inordinate delay in initiating this public law remedy as well due to the unusual reliance of the Single Judge in assessing the compensation on the certification issued by the Hyderabad Collector who has no statutory powers for issuing such certificate, the appeal against the writ petition was allowed and the writ petition dismissed. Writ petitioner cannot invoke public law remedy to claim damages against State unless he establishes that his livelihood has been taken away by culpable negligence on the part of officials of the State. From the conspectus discussion and the conclusion reached herein, Court is of the view that the learned single Judge committed a serious error in entertaining the writ petition and awarding compensation against the State Government, and also awarding interest, de hors restriction in awarding of interest under See. 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure.(Para 65)

       B) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Schedule VII, List II, Entry 1 :- Public order mentioned herein is not only peace, tranquility and public order, with respect to persons, but also their property. (Para 36)

       C) HYDERABAD CITY POLICE ACT, 1348F, Sections 22, 23 and 26:- Prevention of any riots, violence and destruction of private property is the statutory duty of the police commissioner. (Para 33)

       D) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Article 21 – Petitioner seeking compensation for the loss of property shall prove that it affect his livelihood. Life and livelihood are relative terms depending upon the circumstances of the cases. (Paras 54 to 56)

JUDGMENT (Per A.Gopal Reddy, J.)

WA No.1407/2000 under Cl.15 of the Letters Patent by (1) State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad; (2) District Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad and ,(3) Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, is directed against the judgment/order dt. 28-8-2000 allowing WP No.15050/1993 by the learned single Judge of this Court awarding compensation of one crore rupees for the damage of the property belonging to the writ petitioner on the aftermath of assassination of late Rajiv Gandhi.

2. To put very shortly, the essential admitted facts, which give rise to filing of the writ petition, are thus:

On the wide spread news about assassination of late Rajiv Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of this country on 21-5-1991, large scale violence erupted throughout the country including in the State of Andhra Pradesh, and twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad on the night of 21-5-1991, 'where large scale destruction of property, private and public, in different parts of the State. On coming to know about the incident of assassination and since Sri NT Rama Rao was the leader of opposition, the Manager of Ahwanam Hotels, Mr. Ramanaiah expressing fear of possibility of some attack on NTR Estates at Abids reported to the police of Abids Police Station for providing necessary protection to safeguard the properties. According to the Commissioner of police-third respondent, Inspector of Police, Abids Police Station informed about the non-availability of police force at the police station, but around 23-30 hours, the then Commissioner of Police instructed Ramesh Kumar, S.I. of Abids Police Station to deploy police force 'at the house of Sri N.T.Rama Rao and also at N.T.R. Estates, Abids. Accordingly, police picket was posted at the residence of Sri N.T. Rama Rao at Abids. According to the petitioner, the police could not move in the matter and delayed the steps to be taken to protect the interests of NTR Estates including Ramakrishna 70 MM theatre. In the meanwhile, about 150 persons had gathered outside the theatre and while they were making attempts to enter into the N.T.R. Estates, Ramanaiah, Manager of Ahwanam Hotel passed on the information to various persons but could not receive any help from anyone especially from the police. Even police who came to the spot did not take steps to prevent the damage to N.T.R. Estates and played a second fiddle to the men in power and the mob gathered there who were belonging to the Congress Party workers caused extensive damage to the theatre. The police did not take any positive action to prevent from causing damage to the theatre though it could have been possible. After the damage was caused, the Commissioner of Police deputed one Mr. Siva Shanker, Additional Commissioner of Police to enquire into the situation leading to the damage of the theatre. He conducted personal enquiry and submitted his report finding the police officers guilty of dereliction of duties and they have irresponsibly behaved in preventing the property in question. The Government of Andhra Pradesh appointed a Commission of Inquiry under Section 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 consisting of a single member viz., Sri Justice M.R.A.Ansari, a retired Chef Justice of Jammu & Kashmir High Court, through G.O.Ms.No.511, General Administration (GenI.B) Department dt. 22-8-1991 as one-Man Commission to enquire into the widespread incidents of violence involving destruction of properties occurred in several places in Andhra Pradesh following the assassination of Sri Rajiv Gandhi in Tamil Nadu on the night of 21-5-1001. The Commission submitted its report to the Government on 20-6-1992 with its findings in terms of the reference made to it. One Man Commission found that the violent reaction did not lead to attack on public property as generally happened but to attack on private property belonging to the members of the opposition parties i




























































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

gpt-4

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top