Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.E.N. PATRUDU
P.P.M. Thangaiah Nadar Firm & Others - Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Chief Secretary & Others - Respondents
W.P.Nos.2705 of 1999, 6163 of 1999 and 10146 of 1999 and W.M.P.NOs.3856 of 1999 and 8896 of 1999
Decided On : 29 September 2006
COMPENSATION - RIGHT TO PROPERTY - COMMUNAL CLASHES - LIABILITY OF STATE - PUBLIC LAW REMEDY - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - REPORT OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY - COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF PROPERTY - CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT - ARTICLE 300A - ARTICLE 226 - ARTICLE 32 - ARTICLE 21 - ARTICLE 19(1)(f) - COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY ACT, 1952 - SECTION 3(1).
Fact of the Case:
In the wake of communal clashes, a Commission of Inquiry was constituted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to inquire into the causes and circumstances leading to the clashes and to assess the extent of damages and suggest quantum of compensation to be paid to the victims. The Commission submitted its report, which was accepted by the Government. However, the Government sanctioned compensation to the victims equal to the quantum of loss sustained by the claimants or Rs.2 lakhs each, whichever was less. Aggrieved, the victims filed writ petitions claiming the amount indicated in the Commission's report.
Finding of the Court:
1. The deletion of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, which protected the right to hold and acquire property, does not mean that the right to property has ceased to be a legal right. It is now recognized as a 'Constitutional right' under Article 300A, which prohibits deprivation of property save by authority of law. 2. In case of loss of life or damage to property during rioting, the State is liable to pay compensation if its officers ordained with the duty of maintaining law and order have failed to protect the life, liberty, and property of persons, and such failure amounts to dereliction of duty. 3. Such liability can be enforced through Public Law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution or Common Law remedy through a suit for damages. The availability of the remedy under Article 226 depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. 4. The report of a Commission of Inquiry is not legally binding and has no evidentiary value. However, once the report is accepted by the State, it is not fair for the State to contend that it is not bound by the findings of the Commission.
Issues: 1. Whether the deletion of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution affects the right to property. 2. Whether the State is liable to pay compensation for loss of life or damage to property during rioting. 3. Whether such liability can be enforced through Public Law remedy or Common Law remedy. 4. Whether the report of a Commission of Inquiry is binding on the State.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right to property is now recognized as a 'Constitutional right' under Article 300A, which prohibits deprivation of property save by authority of law. 2. The State is liable to pay compensation if its officers ordained with the duty of maintaining law and order have failed to protect the life, liberty, and property of persons, and such failure amounts to dereliction of duty. 3. Such liability can be enforced through Public Law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution or Common Law remedy through a suit for damages. The availability of the remedy under Article 226 depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. 4. The report of a Commission of Inquiry is not legally binding and has no evidentiary value. However, once the report is accepted by the State, it is not fair for the State to contend that it is not bound by the findings of the Commission.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were answered accordingly and were directed to be placed for hearing before the appropriate court.
(W.P.No.2705 of 1999 has been filed to issue writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the 2nd respondent passed in G.O.Ms.No.1834 (Law and Order P) Department, dated 6.11.1998 and quash the same in so far as the fixation of the compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs only and direct the respondents to sanction and pay a sum of Rs.1,84,42,775/- as ascertained by the Enquiry Commission headed by Hon'ble V.K. Thirunavukarasu, District Judge in his report dated 25.6.1997 forthwith with interest.
W.P.No.6163 of 1999 has been filed to issue writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the 2nd respondent passed in G.O.Ms.No.1834 (Law and Order P) Department, dated 6.11.1998 and quash the same in so far as it restricts the compensation to Rs.2 lakhs only and direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.85,74,000/- to the first petitioner as compensation as recommended by the One Man Commission headed by in its report dated 25.6.1997 forthwith with interest.
W.P.No.10146 of 1999 has been filed to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay Rs.70,00,000/- as damages as compensation to the petitioner for the loss sustained by the petitioners during the mob violence and riot which took place on 10-5-1996 at Tuticorin.)
Common Order: P.K. Misra, J.
W.P.No.2705 of 1999 has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the 2nd respondent passed in G.O.Ms.No.1834 (Law and Order P) Department, dated 6.11.1998 and quash the same in so far as the fixation of the compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs only and directing the respondents to sanction and pay a sum of Rs.1,84,42,775/- as ascertained by the Enquiry Commission headed by Thiru V.K. Thirunavukarasu, District Judge in his report dated 25.6.1997 forthwith with interest.
W.P.No.6163 of 1999 has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the 2nd respondent passed in G.O.Ms.No.1834 (Law and Order P) Department, dated 6.11.1998 and quash the same in so far as it restricts the compensation to Rs.2 lakhs only and directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.85,74,000/- to the first petitioner as compensation as recommended by the One Man Commission headed by in its report dated 25.6.1997 forthwith with interest.
W.P.No.10146 of 1999 has been filed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay Rs.70,00,000/- as damages to the petitioner for the loss sustained by the petitioners during the mob-violence and riot which took place on 10-5-1996 at Tuticorin.
2. Before considering the question referred, a brief narration of the facts as culled out from the order passed by the learned single Judge is called for.
On the eve of the Assembly Elections, there was a communal clash in Thoothukudi town on 9.5.1996 between Baradhavar (Fernando) and Nadar communities, which continued unabated for a few days. On 11.5.1996, there was a police firing, resulting in the death of few persons. During such rioting, large scale of arson and looting took place, resulting in damages to properties of several persons belonging to the two groups. Thereafter, the people belonging to business class of Tuticorin shut down their shops from 16.5.1996 demanding adequate police protection and payment of compensation to those who had sustained loss due to such communal clash. At that stage, the Government of Tamil Nadu in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, constituted a Commission of Inquiry headed by a District Judge. The terms of reference were as follows :-
(i) To inquire into and report the cases and circumstances that led to the clashes between two communities in Thoothukudi from 10-5-1996 and subsequent occurrences of Law and Order disturbances.
(ii) To inquire into and report the causes and circumstances that led to the opening of fire by the Poli
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
