IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH J.
Rama Nand Rai Son of Late Keshav Rai - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar -Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.609 of 2016
Decided On : 13-11-2020
Constitution of India – Articles 21 and 226 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 357 – A claim in public law for compensation for contravention of human rights, fundamental freedoms and for injuries caused on account of laxity and apathy of Government authorities is an acknowledged remedy – Monetary or pecuniary compensation can be awarded by a writ court and is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps only suitable remedy for redressal of established infringement of fundamental right to life of a citizen – Claim of citizen is based on principle of strict liability to which defence of sovereign immunity is not available and citizen must receive amount of compensation from State. (Paras 11, 12, 15 and 18)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 357 – Constitution of India – Articles 21 and 226 – Claim for compensation and employment – Deceased was caught in cross-firing – Death in course of police firing in encounter with criminals – Award of compensation in public law jurisdiction is without prejudice to any other action like civil suit for damages which is lawfully available to victim or heirs of deceased victim with respect to same matter for tortious act committed by functionaries of State – Quantum of compensation will depend upon peculiar facts of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be evolved in that behalf – Award of compensation in a proceeding under Article 226 of Constitution is a remedy available in public law, based on strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights to which principle of sovereign immunity does not apply, even though it may be available as a defence in private law in an action based on tort – When court moulds relief by granting compensation in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights, it does so under public law by way of penalising wrongdoer and fixing liability for public wrong on State which has failed in its public duty to protect fundamental rights of citizen – In assessment of compensation, emphasis has to be on compensatory and not on punitive element – Provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot be invoked for the purposes of calculation of damages to which petitioner may be entitled to – Petitioner is liable to get Rs 10,00,000/- as compensation from State. (Paras 20, 22, 29, 30 and 31)
(1993) 2 SCC 746 ; AIR 1961 SC 1457 ; (1999) 1 SCC 741 ; (1997) 9 SCC 377; (1868) LR 3 HL 330; (1987) 1 SCC 395; (1983) 4 SCC 141; (1997) 1 SCC 416 ; (2000) 2 SCC 465; (2006) 3 SCC 178 ; (2011) 14 SCC 481; (2012) 9 SCC ; (2014) 4 SCC 786 ; (2014) 15 SCC 1; (2016) 14 SCC 58 ; (2016) 15 SCC 525 ; (2018) 11 SCC 572; 2004 SCC OnLine Del 721; (2009) 6 SCC 1; (1994) 2 SCC 176; AIR 2006 SC 1117; 2009 (2) SCC 712; (2011) 14 SCC 481; (2009) 6 SCC 121; (2017) 16 SCC 680 – Relied.
1. The present writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents to grant compensation to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 21,00,000/-as also give employment to the family members of the deceased, who has been killed during the course of police firing in an encounter with the criminals.
2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the deceased son of the petitioner, namely, Ranvijay Kumar, was working since the month of March, 1996 as a Special Educator in a school meant for mentally retarded namely, Ayurvedic Magneto Research Institute (AMRI), Panchsheel, Kumhrar, Patna and was getting a salary of Rs. 5000/- per month. On 28.12.2000 at about 4:30 pm., the deceased son of the petitioner was shot dead in a police firing near the Kumhrar police outpost when he was going to the Sandalpur hostel with his two students and he was struck in the cross-firing that had taken place in between the police and the criminals, leading to filing of an FIR bearing Agamkuan P.S. Case No. 265 of 2000 against unknown for the offences under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. On 29.12.2000, post mortem was conducted over the body of the deceased and the death was treated to have been caused by firearms. Thereafter, the petitioner herein had filed an application dated 18.1.2001 before the District Magistrate, Patna for award of compensation, as also employment to one of the dependents of his deceased son. It appears that the District Magistrate, Patna had then, vide letter dated 19.03.2001, directed the S.D.O., Patna City to make an enquiry into the matter, who in turn directed the Circle Officer, Fatuha to conduct enquiry into the cause of death of the son of the petitioner, whereupon the respondent no. 6 i.e. the Circle Officer, Fatuha had submitted his report wherein it was stated that upon enquiry, it has transpired that when the deceased was returning from his school, one gunshot had hit on the chest of the deceased during the course of exchange of fire between the criminals and the police, resulting in death of the deceased, hence, compensation can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner had also sent a complaint dt. 30.8.2001 to the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NHRC’) and the NHRC had taken cognizance of the complaint whereupon a Case No. 1877/4/2001-02 was registered and notice was issued to the District Collector, Patna, calling for a report in the matter.
3. Since the petitioner had failed to get any relief either from the State Government or from the NHRC, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 3135 of 2004 for grant of compensation and appointment to one of the dependent of the deceased son of the petitioner. However, in the meantime, NHRC had issued a notice dated 03.10.2006 under Section 18(3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to the Chief Secretary, Patna asking him to show cause as to why interim relief be not recommended for payment to the next of kin of the deceased. Thereafter, the NHRC vide proceedings dated 24.12.2007 had requested the Chief Secretary, Bihar to consider the case of the death of the son of the petitioner on humanitarian grounds and provide interim relief to the next of kin of the deceased and with this observation, the NHRC had closed the case. The petitioner had then filed various representations, both before the Government officials as also before the President of India and the Governor of Bihar. At last the petitioner received a copy of the letter sent by the Governor Secretariat, Bihar dated 27.5.2015 to the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Bihar, Patna to take appropriate action on the claim of the petitioner herein and accordingly, inform the Governors’ Secretariat whereupon, the petitioner had become hopeful that his grievances would be redressed by the Government, hence, under the said impression, the earlier writ petition bearing CWJC No. 3135 o
Nilabati Behera (Smt) Alias Lalita Behera vs. State of Orissa & Others
Daryao & Others vs. State of U.P. & Others
M. C. Mehta & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.
D.K. Basu Vs. The State of West Bengal
Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. vs. Chandrima Das (Mrs.) & Ors.
Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121
Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
State of Rajasthan vs. Sanyam, Lodha
Raman vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.
Anita Thakur & Ors. Vs. Govt. of J & K & Ors.
Ms. Z Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Prasanth S. Dhanaka & Ors.
General manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.
Air India Statutory Corporation & Ors. vs. United Labour Union & Ors.
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.