Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

( 1 ) UDAY Singh was an electrician who dealt in the sale and repair of electrical goods in his native village Wazirpur in district Gurgaon, haryana. He did not know that the 20th day of April, 1996 would be a fateful one. Also oblivious of this catastrophic day were his wife Kamla devi (the petitioner) and his infant son (Mukesh) aged about 4 months. After closing his shop in the evening of 20. 4. 1996, Uday Singh bade farewell to his wife and son and left for Pahar Ganj, Delhi to make purchases for his small business which provided him with an income of about rs. 3,000/- per month. It was to be the last time that they would see him alive.

( 2 ) AT about 9 p. m. that night, while Uday Singh was on a public road in the Paharganj area in the vicinity of Arjun Guest House, a massive explosion brought the building crashing down. This resulted in the death of uday Singh amongst 16 others. The blast originated in the building itself. As revealed by the additional affidavit (filed on 22. 5. 2001) on behalf of the respondent No. 2, the explosive (RDX) was brought by a person named manzoor Ahmed Khan, an active member of a Jandk terrorist organisation. The said terrorist also died in the blast which occurred while he was assembling an improvised explosive device in the said building. The petitioner was paid an ex-gratia amount of Rs. 50,000/- by the Govt. of nct of Delhi through the SDM s office. Initially, only an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid. Subsequently, a further amount of Rs. 30,000/- was handed over to the petitioner. Would this amount wipe the anguish, the hurt, the agony of the widow? Would this amount be a tangible substitute for a father insofar as the infant Mukesh is concerned? Certainly not. No amount of money can be a replacement for a husband, a father, a person, a life. The bonds, the emotions and the ties have no monetary value. But, when a person dies, it is not just that these relationships terminate, it may even mean economic devastation for the near and dear who were solely dependant on the departed soul. What is to become of Kamla Devi (the widow)? Where will she reside? How will she make en meet? How will she bring up her son Mukesh all by herself? Where will she get the finances necessary to put him through education? And, can a sum of Rs. 50,000/- be an answer to all these questions?

( 3 ) SUREL, for Kamla Devi it is not an answer at all and, accordingly, in this petition, she seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs or any such amount which this court may deem adequate. The respondents say that the ex-gratia payment of Rs. 50,000/- was not in recognition of any right to compensation that the petitioner claims but, was an act of compassion, as a part of their policy in such situations. In any event, they submit that there was no dereliction of duty on the part of the State. Constables had been deployed on the beat. They maintained a constant vigil. They had no information regarding the terrorist in the said Arjun Guest House. It was also suggested that the Gueshouse was private property and the liability was of the owner of the guest house.

( 4 ) THERE can be no doubt that in the death of Uday Singh consequent upon the bomb explosion a wrong has been committed and the fundamental right of protection of life and personal liberty enshrined in article 21 of the Constitution has been violated. When such a thing happens the old and accepted maxim Ubi jus, ibi remedium (There is no wrong without a remedy) comes into play. But, where is the remedy? Surely, not the sum of rs. . 50,000/- ?

( 5 ) LET us see who are the persons responsible for the wrong. Primarily it is the terrorist who was assembling the bomb. Next, it is the State as it failed in living up to its guarantee that "no person shall be deprived of his life. . except according to procedure established by law". The S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document