1. In the unfortunate communal riots which took place in holy city of Jammu on 13th January, 1989, the petitioners, all belonging to Sikh community, suffered losses detailed in the petition. They have prayed for the issuance of direction to the respondents to pay them the compensation to the extent of losses actually suffered by them as shown in Annexure PI to P 7 of petition,

2. It is submitted that the property of the petitioners was destroyed in the riots and the respondent-authorities failed to provide them protection as is the mandate of law adopted and followed in this democratic, socialist, secular State. The District Magistrate is alleged to have conducted a summary inquiry to assess the losses and damages which are shown in the statement attached with the petition.

3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is submitted that as the petitioner-firms are not registered under the Partnership Act, they have no right to file the present petitions under Sec. 69 of the partnership Act. It is submitted that the petitioners have raised disputed questions of fact which could not be gone intoor determined by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. It is alleged that the) petitioners have no fundamental, legal or statutory right in seeking compensation from the respondents. It is, however, admitted that the communal] riots broke out in the city of Jammu due to the alleged active connivance of anti-national and anti-social elements resulting in injuries and deaths of members of the Hindu and Sikh communities, it is also admitted that the petitioners suffered losses to their properties in those riots. The communal riots are alleged to have been engineered by some anti-national forces and members of some communities. The respondent-State initiated all measures to curb and prevent anti-national and anti-social activities The State Govt. issued. Govt. Order no. Rev-ER-21/89 dated 23-1-1989 sanctioning the grant of ex-gratia relief in favour of the persons who lost their lives or sustained injuries or suffered losses of their properties. A Committee was constituted comprising of S/Shri Harbans Lal, Tehsildar and Qamar-ud-Din, Addl. Tehsildar, for assessing the losses suffered during the riots. The said committee was to work under the supervision of the Asstt. Commissioner (R) Jammu. The committee assessed the losses caused to various firms and business enterprises in the city including the petitioners the details of which have been shown in Annexures R 3 to R 5. According to the Government decision the persons who had suffered loss of property were granted ex-gratia relief up to a maximum of Rs. 25,000 which has already been paid to the petitioners. The provisions of Articles 14/19 & 21 of the Constitution have not been plated as claimed by the petitioners. The writ petition is alleged to be misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Article 21 of the federal Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. This article embodies the general principle that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty and guarantees the most essential of all the rights as enshrined in part-Ill of the Constitution. This article puts a limitation on the powers of the executive. The term life used in the Article is not only restricted to the mere nominal existence but extends to the inhibition against its deprivation to all those limits and faculties by which life is enjoyed. It also includes the right to livelihood. The ambit and scope of right to life conferred by this article is wide and for reaching which does not mean merely that life cannot by extinguished or taken away but embraces within its ambit the right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of living. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document