Madras High Court
Manjunath vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 November, 2022
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
W.P.No.29658 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDER RESERVED ON : 14.11.2022
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 22.11.2022
CORAM
HON'BLE JUSTICE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
HON'BLE JUSTICE MRS.JUSTICE.N.MALA
W.P.No.29658 of 2004
Manjunath ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by Secretary,
Home Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri.
3.The State Human Rights Commission,
No.35, Thiru-vi-ka Salai,
Chennai-600 014.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Dharmapuri.
5.The District Collector, Krishnagiri,
Krishnagiri District.
1/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29658 of 2004
R5- Impleaded as per order of Court dated 08.12.2005 in W.P.41065/04
...Respondents
.
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to pay
compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the permanent disability caused to the
petitioner in the police firing and direct the Respondents to give a suitable job and
order withdrawal of the criminal case bearing No.452 of 2001.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Mohan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
[Order of the Court was delivered by N.MALA,J.] Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to pay compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the permanent disability caused to the petitioner in the police firing and direct the respondents to give a suitable job and further order the withdrawal of the criminal case bearing No.452 of 2001.
2/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29658 of 2004 "To deny people their human rights is to challenge humanity."
..Nelson Mandela This is a typical case of violation of human rights by no less an authority but the state. We all know human rights are those fundamental rights which every man and women on earth possesses by virtue of having been born as a human being. With this preface we venture to discuss and decide this case.
2. The brief facts of the case necessary for consideration of the relief sought in the writ petition are as follows:
The petitioner was a resident of Kamanthotti village. The petitioner was a student of Standard XI in Hosur Government Boys Higher Secondary School. According to the petitioner, besides studies, he also used to deliver milk to the nearby hotels in the morning and earning around Rs.1,000/- as monthly income. According to the petitioner, on 18.10.2001, Local Body Election (Second Phase) of the petitioner's panchayat was held and an Election Booth was set up in the primary school of the petitioner's village. The primary school, in which the election booth was set-up was situated in a commercial area of Hosur Krishnagiri National Highways. The petitioner's further case was that, in view of the election on 3/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29658 of 2004 18.10.2001, public holiday was declared for the schools and while he was returning home after distribution of milk to the hotels, he saw a crowd near the Kamanthotti Panchayat Elementary School. He found that the police officials from shoolagiri Police Station were ordering the shop keepers around the primary school to shut down the shops, the police ransacked the shops which were not closed at 7:25 a.m. The circle Inspector of shoolagiri Police Station, Mr.Parthiban arrived and he joined the other police men. The policemen ransacked the shop of one Rajammal, who ran a petty shop and were throwing away the gunny bags containing provisions. The said Rajammal questioned the policemen, on the high handed behaviour, which enraged the policemen and they started abusing and hitting her with their lathi. Her sons, who were nearby, came to rescue her and on seeing this heartrending incident about 30 villagers gathered and questioned the policemen for their unlawful behaviour. The policemen lathi charged the villagers and the circle Inspector Mr.Parthiban, without any provocation and without any warning took out his pistol and opened fire. The petitioner, a 16 year old at that time was standing nearby, watching the whole incident. On seeing the crowd running helter-skelter because of the firing, the petitioner tried to flee but was hit by a bullet in his right ankle and fell un-conscious. Along with the petitioner two 4/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29658 of 2004 other persons were also injured in the said firing. The petitioner was admitted in the Government Hospital, Hosur at 9:10 a.m. by the villagers, but the Doctors there, advised them to take him to Government Hospital at Bangalore so as to remove the bullet. The petitioner was admitted in the hospital and the bullet was also removed. The petitioner was treated in the hospital till 24.12.2001, and thereafter also the petitioner visited the hospital as Out-patient for nearly one year for monthly checkups, for the injury sustained by him. Due to the disability caused by the injury, the petitioner was forced to dis-continue his studies at Hosur Government Boys Higher Secondary School and had to join shoolagiri Government Higher Secondary School, which was nearer to his residence. According to the petitioner, due to the injury, he could not pursue his studies in an institution of his choice. The policemen, in order to justify the unwarranted firing lodged a criminal case against the petitioner and 24 others in criminal case No.452 of 2001, under various provisions of the I.P.C and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Loss and Damage) Act,1992. In the said complaint the petitioner was shown as minor and no allegations were made against him. At the instance of the National Human Rights Commission, the 4th respondent i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri, conducted an enquiry and submitted a 5/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29658 of 2004 report wherein, he stated that 3 persons had suffered minor injuries. The National Human Rights Commission, thereafter closed the case without affording an opportunity to the affected persons and also without verifying the facts stated in the enquiry report. The petitioner further stated that, there were other enquiries conducted, wherein it was found that there was no justification for the firing. The petitioner further submitted that the District Collector of Dharmapuri, on 23.10.2001 paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore filed the above writ petition, for gross violation of Human Rights by the respondents and prayed for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs.
3. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent filed a counter denying all the allegations and contentions raised in the petitioner's writ affidavit and presented his version of the facts of the case. According to the respondent, the local body election was held on 18.01.2001 to elect the Panchayat President and at about 7:15 a.m., the petitioner and others unlawfully assembled and resorted to violence. When the mob saw the circle Inspector of Shoolagiri Police Station who came for election duty they started pelting stones at the police personnel and damaged the police vehicles. The situation became uncontrollable, inspite of mild lathi charge. 6/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29658 of 2004 Apprehending that more violence would take place endangering the safety and life of the police personnel, firing was opened and in consequence thereof, the petitioner sustained minor injuries. According to the respondent the firing was inevitable and also that some police personnel sustained injuries in the incident and they were admitted in the hospital. Thereafter a case in Crime No.452/2001 was registered under various Sections of IPC r/w. Sections 3(i) of the Tamil Nadu Property Prevention and Loss of Damage Act, 1992, by the circle Inspector of Police Shoolagiri. The charge sheet was filed against 42 accused and the Sessions Court, Krishnagiri took up the case in S.C.No.56/2006, which was later transferred to Sub Court, Hosur for Trial and ultimately the Sub Court, Hosur acquitted all the accused on 22.02.2016. It was further contended that the prosecution had taken steps to prefer an appeal against the acquittal. The respondents in the counter affidavit stated that the petitioner had suppressed some important facts and that prior to the election, the accused Murugan and others including the petitioner held a meeting where it was decided that the post of Councillor of Panchayat and President should be elected from the contestants of Kamanthotti village only and that the contestants from other villagers should not contest and vote. The petitioner's group in order to execute their plan on 18.10.2001 at about 7:15 a.m., 7/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29658 of 2004 blocked the National Highway Road of Krishnagiri to Hosur and threatened the villagers not to vote. The petitioner's group had assembled with deadly weapons and attacked the police by pelting stones. The circle Inspector of Shoolagiri arrived on the spot to disperse the assembly. The respondents therefore submitted that the police officials had not violated any rights of the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Reiterating the submissions made in the writ affidavit, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, this was a typical case of police excesses and the victim of the same was a minor boy who sustained grievous injuries to his right leg, because of un-authorised and indiscreet firing by the Inspector of Shoolagiri on 18.10.2001. The learned counsel taking us through the material on record submitted that the respondents violated the fundamental right to life and the human rights of the petitioner and as such the writ petition should be allowed.
5. On the other hand the learned Additional Government Pleader reiterated the averments made in the counter and further submitted that in any event the claim for Rs.5 lakhs as compensation cannot be awarded in view of the 8/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29658 of 2004 G.O.Ms.No.853 dated 22.05.1998. The learned Additional Government Pleader therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
6. We have heard the respective counsels and perused the materials on records.
7. It is not disputed that an incident of police firing occurred on 18.10.2001 and 3 persons from the public and the circle Inspector of Police, Shoolagiri, Mr.Parthiban sustained injuries. The 2nd respondent Collector, Dharmapuri vide his order dated 18.10.2001, ordered for Magisterial enquiry on the incident which took place on 18.10.2001 at about 7:15 a.m. The Sub Divisional (executive) Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Hosur conducted an enquiry from 09.11.2001 to 11.12.2001 and submitted his report on 23.12.2001 to the Collector of DPI, Dharmapuri. The Sub Divisional executive Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Hosur in his report gave a categorical finding that there were no warranting circumstances to resort to firing and also found that the circle Inspector of Police, Shoolagiri, Mr.Parthiban was squarely responsible and he was to be dealt with as per the Rules. The relevant portion of the enquiry report is as follows: 9/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29658 of 2004 "In the episode, the Inspector also sustained injuries, but they are adjudged as "simple" in nature by the Duty Medial Officer and as such the Inspector's plea that he was chased and beaten by the villages armed with deadly weapons falls to ground.
The public of the kamandoddy were out of village for one week. The action of Police created panic in the minds of public. The police took away a Bullet Motor cycle of one Thiru Nagaraj of Kamandoddy, which has not been accounted for in the books of Shoolagiri Police Station.
After a careful assessment of the evidences tendered by the several witnesses enquired under P.S.O.144, and after examination of the medical and Police record, I come to the mature consideration, that, had the Inspector of Police Mr.Parthiban was prudent enough to keep low profile, without giving unwarranted direction to the shop keeper Rajamma to close he shop by using filthy language not bearable by woman-folk, such as " njtoah"
and thereby entangling himself in wordy quarrels besides beating the lady and his son Murugan by "LATHI", there are no warranting circumstances to resort to "FIRING", for which the Circle Inspector Parthiban is squarely responsible and he has to be dealt with as per rules, since there is ample proof all round to my satisfaction to arrive at this irresistible Judicial conclusion."10/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29658 of 2004
8. As far as the contention of the respondent, that the Inspector and other police personnel were injured, the R.D.O. held that the duty medical officer urged that the injury of the Inspector was simple in nature and as such, the Inspector's plea that, he was chased and beaten by the villagers who were armed with deadly weapons fell to the ground. A reading of the First Information Report dated 18.10.2001 filed by the circle Inspector, Shoolagiri Mr.Parthiban, it is clear that the same was filed to cover up his lapses. It is clear from the materials on record, particularly the report dated 23.12.2001 of the Sub Divisional (executive) Magistrate and RDO that the case set-up by the respondents in the FIR and also in the counter affidavit is a blatant lie and the said statements are made only to wriggle out of the misdemeanour committed by the circle Inspector, Shoolagiri. It is really appalling, that the 4th respondent should support the version of the errant police official moreso when the same was rejected by the Sub Divisional (executive) Magistrate and RDO in his enquiry report dated 23.12.2001, conducted on the orders of the Collector. The reckless adoption of the self serving version of the errant official shows the callous attitude of the respondent. The counter is a typical example of cover up by the respondent's of the illegal acts of the errant police officer. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 11/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29658 of 2004 incident even according to the FIR filed by the circle Inspector, Shoolagiri happened at 7:15 a.m. at Kamanthotti village, but the errant police official is said to have lodged the FIR at 10:30 a.m. at Hosur Police Station which was at a considerable distance from the site of incident. It is to be remembered that the circle Inspector claims to have also gone to the Hospital for the alleged grievous injuries sustained by him in the incident in the interregnum. All this within a short time is hard to believe, moreso, when a tense law and order situation was created by him by his reckless action in the village. The recitals of the FIR are clear indication that the FIR has been filed by the errant police officer to cover up his lapses in opening fire without proper authorisation.
9. It is further seen from the wound certificate and the discharge summary that the petitioner sustained bullet injury. In the discharge summary, it is clearly stated that the bullet was removed and external sutures were made, the wound certificate further reflects that the injury sustained by the petitioner was grievous in nature.
10. On the conspectus of the facts of the case particularly the report of the 12/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29658 of 2004 Sub Divisional (executive) Magistrate and RDO dated 23.12.2001, we hold that the petitioner's Human and Fundamental Rights were violated. It is unfortunate that the National Human Rights Commission closed the case on the basis of the one sided report of the Superintendent of Police dated 23.11.2001, which was self serving and made with a view to shield the errant Police official.
11. Having found on the facts that the petitioner's human rights and fundamental rights were violated, we now embark on the quantification of compensation payable to the petitioner. We refer to a few judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the power of this Court to award compensation in proceedings under Article 226 for infringement of fundamental and human rights. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nilabati Behera (smt) alias Lalitha Behera (Through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) Vs. State of Orissa and Others reported in 1993 (2) SCC 746 held as follows:
"17. It follows that 'a claim in public law for compensation' for contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the protection of which is guaranteed in the Constitution, is an acknowledged remedy for enforcement and protection of such rights, and such a claim based on strict liability made by resorting to a 13/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29658 of 2004 constitutional remedy provided for the enforcement of a fundamental right is 'distinct from, and in addition to, the remedy in private law for damages for the tort' resulting from the contravention of the fundamental right. The defence of sovereign immunity being inapplicable, and alien to the concept of guarantee of fundamental rights, there can be no question of such a defence being available in the constitutional remedy. It is this principle which justifies award of monetary compensation for contravention of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, when that is the only practicable mode of redress available for the contravention made by the State or its servants in the purported exercise of their powers, and enforcement of the fundamental right is claimed by resort to the remedy in public law under the Constitution by recourse to Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution."
In the case of Saheli A Women's Resource Centre and Others Vs Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Head Quarters and Others reported in 1990 (1) SCC 422, it was held that the State was responsible for the tortious acts of its employees. In Rudul Sah Vs State of Bihar and Another reported in 1983 (4) SCC 141, it was said " The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and which present for their protection the powers of the State as a 14/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29658 of 2004 shield. If civilisation is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others too well known to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that, respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner's rights. It may have recourse against those officers." It is pertinent to note that in Rudal Sah's case the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the State had not given satisfactory explanation for its action. In the context of infringement of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21, the Court held as follows:
" In these circumstances, the refusal of this Court to pass an order of compensation in favour of the petitioner will be doing mere lip- service to his fundamental right to liberty which the State Government has so grossly violated. Article 21 which guarantees the right to life and liberty will be denuded of its significant content if the power of this Court were limited to passing orders of release from illegal detention. One of the telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance with the mandate of Article 21 secured, is to mulct its violators in the payment of monetary compensation. Administrative sclerosis leading to flagrant infringements of fundamental rights cannot be corrected by 15/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29658 of 2004 any other method open to the judiciary to adopt."
We do not want to multiply precedents. It is seen from the said judgments that it is the duty of the Court's to redress the grievance of the victims of police excesses. It is the duty of the state to protect the rights of citizens and not to shield the errant officials. As pointed out above, unfortunately, the counter filed in this case attempts to cover up and protect its officers who have blatantly violated the petitioner's fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on a G.O. of the Government of Tamil Nadu dated 22.05.1998 in G.O.Ms.No.833 and submitted that even in case of death, the maximum compensation that could be awarded is Rs.2 lakhs as per the G.O. We have gone through the G.O. and we find that the said G.O. refers to communal/ caste clashes and does not refer to police excesses. We are therefore of the view that the above said G.O. does not apply to the present case.
16/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29658 of 2004
13. Though, the petitioner has prayed for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs) as compensation and also for Government Job, we are of the view that on the facts of the case, a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) would be just and reasonable. It is undisputed that the petitioner was only 16 years of age at the time of incident and he had to shift his school because of the incident. We cannot be insensitive to the trauma, mental and physical agony undergone by the petitioner at that tender age. One other reason for awarding Rs.10 lakhs as against the petitioner's claim for Rs.5,00,000/, is that the said amount was claimed in 2004, and as the value of money has decreased due to inflation, we are not inclined to peg the compensation to the Amount claimed. We are therefore inclined to award Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) as compensation. The compensation of Rs.10 lakhs quantified by us is awarded not only for the violation of the petitioner's fundamental and human rights but it is also awarded to admonish the respondents that its officers cannot escape from the long arm of the law and that they should function within the 4 corners of law. The founders of our Constitution have toiled day and night and given us the elixir of fundamental rights. If the protectors of citizens rights themselves violate the same, then it is inevitable for this Court to intervene and redress the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner 17/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29658 of 2004 prayed for interest on the compensation amount fixed by this Hon'ble Court, we are not inclined to award any interest as no plea is raised in the affidavit for the same. We reject the claim of the petitioner for a Government job, also as we are of the view that the petitioner is adequately compensated monetarily. In this context it is pertinent to note that on our directions, the petitioner appeared in Court and on enquiry, he submitted that he is running an electronic repair shop and is earning substantial income. We are therefore of the view that direction to pay compensation of Rs.10 lakhs will be fair, just and appropriate remedy. The respondents are directed to make the payment within 3 months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.
14. Before parting with the case we would like to place on record our displeasure at the casual and irresponsible stand adopted by the 4th respondent in the counter filed in this case. The 4th respondent has gone overboard to shield the errant official and has disowned the Sub Divisional (executive) Magistrate and RDO's enquiry report which was filed on the directions of the District Collector, Dharmapuri, the 2nd respondent herein. It is to be noted that the counter was filed in 2019 long after the enquiry report dated 23.12.2001. We only hope that in future more caution is exercised and the respondent state would uphold the rights 18/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29658 of 2004 of its citizens and show more reverence to the Constitution, which we the people of India have given unto ourselves. It is open to the respondents to take any action including the recovery of the compensation amount from the errant officials.
For all the above reasons, we are inclined to allow the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs.
[S.S.S.R,J.] [N.M.,J.]
Index : Yes/No 22.11.2022
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
dsn
19/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29658 of 2004
To
1.The Secretary,
Home Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri.
3.The State Human Rights Commission,
No.35, Thiru-vi-ka Salai,
Chennai-600 014.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Dharmapuri.
5.The District Collector, Krishnagiri,
Krishnagiri District.
20/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.29658 of 2004
S.S.SUNDAR,J.
and
N.MALA ,J.
dsn
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN
W.P.No.29658 of 2004
22.11.2022
21/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis