Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2623
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, PRAKASH PADIA, JJ.
State of U.P. and 2 Others - Petitioners
Versus
U.P. Human Rights Commission and Another - Respondents
Writ - C No. 23926 of 2017
Decided On : 24-10-2019
For the Petitioner: Bhola Nath Yadav.
For the Respondent: R.P. Singh Parihar.
Point of Law: It is clear that the Commission has empowered to take any of the steps as contained under Section 18 of the Act, 1993.
Headnote:
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 – Sections 357-A, 18 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 –Section 13 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Issue on Violation of Human Rights – It is clear that the respondent no.1 has full power and authority to direct the District Magistrate/Superintendent of Police to make the compensation to the victim as has been done in the present case.
Facts of the case: It is argued by learned Chief Standing Counsel that the order impugned passed by the respondent no.1 is perverse and without jurisdiction and have been passed without application of judicial mind and as such the same is liable to be quashed – It is further argued that Section 18 provides that where the inquiry discloses the commission of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights or abetment thereof by a public servant, it may recommend to the concerned Government or authority to make payment of compensation or damages to the complainant.
Finding of the court: In view of the facts as narrated above as well as from perusal of the judgement of two different Division Benches of this Court passed it is clear that the respondent no.1 has full power and authority to direct the District Magistrate/Superintendent of Police to make the compensation to the victim as has been done in the present case –In the facts and circumstances of the case, Commission is entitled to do so where it finds either a violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights –The order passed by respondent no.1/U.P. Human Rights Commission does not want any interference specially
Result: Writ Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Prakash Padia, J.
1. Heard Sri Suresh Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.P. Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
2. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition for quashing of the order dated 7.11.2016 passed by U.P. Human Rights Commission, Lucknow in Case No.1757(71)/2016-17 by which the District Magistrate, Fatehpur/Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur were directed to pay Rs. 1 lac to the Ansarul Haq/respondent no.2 and to inform the Commission.
3. The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the respondent no.2 namely Ansarul Haq sustained injuries on the head and in the right eye due to the riots which occurred on 14.1.2016 during the procession on the occasion of Makar Sankranti at Jahanabad, District Fatehpur. After the aforesaid incident the respondent no.2 moved an application dated 10.5.2016 to the Chief Minister, Govt. of U.P., claiming for the compensation. In this regard a certificate was also issued in favour of the respondent no.2 on 14.6.2016 by the Chief Medical Officer, Fatehpur, stating therein that the right eye of the complainant/respondent no.2 is 100% blind and left eye is normal and as such the opinion was recorded to the effect that the disability suffered by the respondent no.2 is 30%. A scheme was introduced by the State Government namely “U.P. Victim Compensation Scheme-2014” in which it is provided that a victim shall be eligible for the grant of compensation if he is found eligible under the provisions of para 4 of the Victim Compensation Scheme-2014, which was amended vide amendment scheme dated 7.6.2016.
4. Paragraph 4 of the U.P. Victim Compensation Scheme-2014 as has been published in the official gazette on 09.4.2014 is reproduced below :-
“4. A victim shall be eligible for the grant of compensation if:
(a) the offender is not traced or identified, but the victim is identified and where no trial takes place; such victim may also apply for grant of compensation under sub section (4) of section 357-A of the Act;
(b) the victim/claimant reports the crime to the officer-in-charge of the police station within 48 hours of the occurrence or any senior police officer or Executive Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the area provided that the District Legal Services Authority, if satisfied for the reasons to be recorded in writing, may condone the delay in reporting;
(c) the victim/claimant cooperates with the police and the prosecution during the investigation and trial of the case.”
5. It is contended that as per the aforesaid scheme of 2014 a person is entitled for compensation when he sustained disability ranging from 40 to 80%. It is further argued that the respondent no.2 sustained injuries causing disability only upto 30%. On the application submitted by the respondent no.2 before the Chief Minister an order was passed on 2.8.2016 under the signatures of the Secretary (Account) Govt. of U.P., Lucknow by which an order was passed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-to the respondent no.2 under the U.P. Relief Fund Scheme. In compliance of the aforesaid order the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(two lacs) was duly paid to the respondent no.2 by the District Magistrate, Fatehpur vide cheque dated 31.8.2016. Being not satisfied with the aforesaid amount of compensation, the respondent no.2 made an application before the Chairman/Secretary, State Human Rights Commission, Lucknow, which was registered as Case No.1757 (71)/2016-17. On the aforesaid application the State Human Rights Commission, Lucknow wrote a letter dated 18.5.2016 to the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur for conducting the enquiry and to submit its report in respect of the aforesaid complaint. Pursuant to the same, an enquiry was got conducted and the report dated 27.7.2016 was submitted by the Circle Officer, Bindki, to the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur, on 27.7.2016, copy of which is appended as annexure 11 to the writ petition.
6. The aforesaid report was duly
