Advocates:
['SNIGDHA TIWARI', 'C S C', 'AJAY SINGH BISHT', 'ADDL C S C']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (MS) No. 26 of 2019

Gulnaaz Khan. .......…......Petitioner.

Through: Ms. Snigdha Tiwari, learned counsel for

the petitioner.

-Versus-

State of Uttarakhand

and others. ……...Respondents.

Through: Shri Ajay Singh Bisht, learned Addl. CSC

for the State of Uttarakhand.

Date of Hearing & Order : 16.12.2022

Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.

1.

By filing this writ petition, the petitioner, an acid attack

victim, has prayed for compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- for losses,

she suffered due to acid attack on her. She has also prayed for

issuance of a writ Mandamus for making comprehensive

rehabilitation scheme and to pay directly to the Hospitals for

future expenses to be incurred by her in medical procedures that

might be taken. She has also certain other ancillary prayers in the

writ petition.

2.

The facts are not disputed at this stage. Petitioner was

attacked with acid on 29.11.2014 in which petitioner received

third degree burn injuries on her face and chest. She sustained

60% burn injuries on her upper body and knee and she has lost

her right ear. The accused, who attacked the petitioner with acid,

was convicted and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous

imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 326-

A IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar and

while convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences, the

learned Session Judge, Udham Singh Nagar referred the matter to

2

District Legal Services Authority for payment of compensation. A

sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- was given by District Programme Officer,

Udham Singh Nagar in compliance of order passed by Criminal

Injury Compensation Board under the Uttarakhand Victim from

Crime Assistance Scheme, 2013. By virtue of interim order dated

24.09.2019 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court, an

additional compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- was granted to her.

3.

Learned Addl. CSC for the State would submit that since

the petitioner had already paid the compensation by the District

Legal Service Authority, as per the Scheme and still if petitioner

has any grievance, then she should have filed an appeal before

the Uttarakhand State Legal Service Authority (hereinafter

referred to as “UKSLSA” for brevity), the writ petition is not

maintainable, in view of availability of efficacious alternative

remedy to her. In support of his contention, he has placed

reliance upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Titaghur Paper Mills Vs. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC

433.

4.

However, this Court has taken recourse of judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs.

Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1, wherein the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has held that under Article 226 of the Constitution,

the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to

entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has

imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an

effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not

normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been

consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least four

contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the

enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a

violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or

3

proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is

challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point ….xxxx.”

5.

No statue book provides for such a bar for entertaining the

writ petition by the High Court. The powers of High Court for

issuing writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very

wide. The Hon’b