The principle established is that once compensation has been allowed by a constitutional body, petitioners cannot seek the same relief through another forum under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

1. The petitioners are the legal heirs of late Paomilun Lhouvum. They have filed this writ application for payment of compensation of Rs. 15 lakh on allegation that late Paomilun Lhouvum was apprehended by the personnel of 17th Assam Rifles on 25.2.2001 and his dead body was found at foot hill of Tinsid Hill near Yaral Pat on 6.3.2001.

2. The petitioner No.1 is the father, Petitioner No.2 is the wife and petitioner No.3 is the minor daughter of late Paomilun Lhouvum. It is stated that deceased was earning about 4000 rupees per month and was only 25 years of age at the time of his death. It is alleged in the writ petition that on 25.2.2001 at about 10:30 AM the deceased with another were apprehended by the armed personnel of 17th Assam Rifles and were subjected to inhuman torture. Though the other person was released on the same day near Pangmoul Village, the deceased did not return. A report was submitted by the petitioner No.2 on 28.2.2001 and a request was made to conduct an enquiry. The dead body of the deceased was kept in the Morgue of RIMS where the petitioner No.2 identified the dead body. Thereafter, a request was made by the petitioner No.1 to the respondent No.8 to register a regular FIR against the personnel of 17th Assam Rifles. The petitioner No.1 also approached the Chairperson, Manipur Human Rights Commission, Imphal with complaint on 10.3.2000 requesting for passing an order directing the concerned police to conduct proper investigation into the case by registering FIR. Subsequently, only on 18.3.2001 the FIR was registered and the National Human Rights Commission took up the issue and issued notice to the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. Alleging that the deceased died due to the torture meted to him by the personnel of 17th Assam Rifles while in custody, this writ application has been filed praying for compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs.

3. During pendency of the writ application, Court directed the District Judge, Manipur West to conduct an enquiry on 17.11.2006. In compliance of the said order, the District Judge, Manipur West has submitted a report on 27.1.2012 specifically holding that the personnel of 17th Assam Rifles were responsible for the death of the deceased. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the said report and prayed for payment of compensation. It is admitted in the writ application that this issue was also raised before the National Human Rights Commission and the National Human Rights Commission directed for payment of compensation of Rs. 5 lakh. In compliance of the said order, the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati district wrote a letter to the petitioner No.1 on 3.9.2013 to receive the cheque from his office. Therefore the question to be decided is as to whether the petitioner No.1 having approached the National Human Rights Commission and compensation having been awarded by the National Human Rights Commission, this writ should be entertained or not.

4. Undisputedly, the National Human Rights Commission is a statutory/Constitutional body specifically empowered to look into the allegations of violation of human rights. In the present case, allegation is that the some of the personnel of 17th Assam Rifles apprehended the deceased, tortured him which resulted in his death. On the complaint of the petitioner No.1 the National Human Rights Commission has also directed payment of compensation of Rs. 5 lakh. The petitioners, therefore, having approached a constitutional body and the said constitutional body having allowed compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs, they cannot avail of another forum under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for payment of compensation. If the petitioners are not satisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the National Human Rights Commission, the only option open for them is to approach the civil court praying for higher compensation. Two parallel proceedings for the same relief before two constitutional authorities cannot be entertaine