The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for establishing indisputable evidence of police atrocity and the limitations of seeking remedy in writ proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents No.1 to 4 to pay the adequate compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to petitioner for the grievous injuries caused at the hands of the respondents No.5 to 13 along with unknown named identified 3 police constables numbered with RMD 1287, RMD 1549 and RMD 1771 police committed atrocities against the petitioner as they illegally resorted assault and brutally attacked during the Unity March taken out by the members of popular Front of India with the prior permission of the respondents No.3 and 5 and the same may be recovered from the salary of the Respondents No.5 to 13 if they so advised.)

1. Any victim of police atrocity is entitled to claim damages against the State by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This can be taken as too well settled a proposition. The claimant must establish the following facts:-

(a) there was an illegal action by the police or an excessive use of force which cannot be said to be in good faith.

(b) the victim suffered injury as a result and he / she was not at fault

However, the materials placed before the Court must be fairly indisputable. While any individual having claim can seek remedy before the Human Rights Commission or the department or the jurisdictional Civil Court, to secure redress in writ proceeding, the aforesaid conditions must be satisfied.

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-

The petitioner is a practicing lawyer. He is a political activist too. He was associated with Popular Front of India. The said organization proposed to hold a public meeting and rally on 17.02.2014 at Ramanathapuram. While the jurisdictional police did not have any objection for PFI to hold the public meeting, their request for conducting procession was denied. However, the issue was reconsidered and the Additional Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram / fifth respondent herein vide proceedings dated 16.02.2014 granted permission to conduct procession from Chinnakadai Junction to Santhaipettai Thidal which was the venue of the meeting. Certain restrictions were also stipulated. Since the organizers had requested that the legal team may also be present on the occasion, the petitioner and few other advocates were present. The bandobast team was headed by the fifth respondent. Even though the assembly of PFI volunteers was peaceful, the fifth respondent behaved in a provocative manner. He imposed unreasonable restrictions. According to the petitioner, the private respondents had conspired to create commotion. The fifth respondent suddenly ordered his subordinates to attack the persons who had assembled. The police lathi-charged them. The petitioner was one of the persons who also bore the brunt of the attack. The fifth respondent involved certain private individuals belonging to certain fundamentalist organizations. The police pelted stones. The petitioner suffered bloody and grievous injuries. He was rushed to Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram. He was then referred to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. Since his condition was bad, he got himself admitted to a private hospital (Saravana Muli- Speciality Private Hospital, Madurai) for further treatment. He was admitted as in-patient on 18.02.2014 and discharged on 26.02.2014. Seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by him, the present writ petition came to be filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. A voluminous typed set of papers was filed and I was taken through the materials enclosed therein. Reliance was placed on the enquiry report submitted by the then Inspector General of Police, SID, CB-CID, Chennai. My attention was drawn to the statements of witnesses and documents annexed to the said report. The learned