Yallavva W/O Adiveppa Amatennavar vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2012

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Yallavva W/O Adiveppa Amatennavar vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2012

Bench: Ajit J.Gunjal

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

             CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

       DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2012

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJIT J.GUNJAL

     WRIT PETITION NO. 63656/2010 (GM-Res)

BETWEEN:

Smt.Yallavva,
W/o.Adiveppa Amatennavar,
Age: 70 Years, Occ: House Wife,
R/o. Ambedkar Nagar,
Saundatti, Dist.Belgaum.             ... PETITIONER

      (By Sri. M.R.Naragund, Adv.)

AND:

1.    The State of Karnataka
      Represented by the
      Secretary to the Govt.
      Department of Home,
      Vidhan Soudha,
      Bangalore.

2.    The Superintend of Police,
      Belgaum, Sadashivnagar.

3.    The Superintend of Lokayukt
      Belgaum, D.C.Compound.

4.    S.S. Solabannavar,
      Age: 50 Years,
      Occ: Head Constable,
                                :2:



     R/o. Police Station,
     Saundatti, Dist. Belgaum.

5.   Srinivas Honda,
     Age: 42 Years, Occ: P.S.I.,
     R/o. Police Station,
     Saundatti, Belgaum.

6.   M.V. Badiger,
     Age: 40 Years, Occ: P.S.I.,
     R/O Police Station, Saundatti.

7.   Circle Police Inspector,
     Saundatti Circle,
     Saundatti.                      ... RESPONDENTS

     (By Smt.Megha C.Kolekar, Govt. Pleader
             for R1, R2, R3 and R7.)
                           ....

       This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to direct
the respondent No.1 state to compensate the petitioner
the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- the value of the properties lost
in the heist of her house in view of the vicarious liability
for its delinquent officials and etc.

     This writ petition coming on for orders, this day,
the Court made the following:

                          ORDER

The petitioner, it appears lost considerable amount of gold as well as cash in a theft. Hence, he lodged a complaint in the Saundatti Police Station and FIR is lodged in Crime No.75/2008 and it was submitted to the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Since no :3: progress was made, the petitioner represented the case to the Superintendant of Police, Belgaum. Since no action was taken by the 2nd respondent, a complaint was sent to Bangalore. The complaint was received by the Lokayuktha on 22.10.2009. The present complaint was referred to Lokyuktha Superintendent, Belgaum, who recorded the statements of the petitioner and her daughter. On complaint and investigation, a `C' report has been filed inasmuch as the case could not have been investigated. The present writ petition filed seeking the following relief:

(a) To issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No.1 State to compensate the Petitioner the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- the value of the properties lost in the heist of her house in view of the vicarious liability for its delinquent officials.

(b) To issue further, the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate directing the respondent No.1 state to compensate at the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the sufferings in the hands of the deliquent officials.

:4:

(c) To issue writ of mandamus for any other appropriate directing the respondent No.1 State to compensate totally at Rs.5,00,000/- by allowing this writ petition in the ends of justice.

2. Apparently, the petitioner is claiming a writ of mandamus to the 1st respondent State to compensate the petitioner for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, the value of the properties lost in heist in view of the liability of delinquent officials. The claim appears to be as against the State. The Apex Court in the case of M/s. Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain V/s. The State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1965 SC 1039 has observed thus:

"There is a material distinction between acts committed by the servants employed by the State, where such acts are referable to the exercise of sovereign powers delegated to public servants and acts committed by public servants which are not refarable to the delegation of any Sovereign Powers. If a tortious act is committed by a public servant and it has given rise to a claim for damages, the question to ask is: was the tortious act committed by the public servant in discharge of statutory functions which are referable to, :5: and ultimately based on, the delegation of sovereign powers of the State to such public servant? If the answer is in the affirmative, the action for damages for loss caused by such tortious act will not lie. On the other hand, if the tortious act has been committed by a public servant in discharge of duties assigned to him not by virtue of the delegation of any sovereign power, an action for damages would lie."

3. In the case on hand, the very case of the petitioner is that there was a theft and certain gold ornaments were lost. The grievance of the petitioner that the investigating agency has not taken sufficient care, cannot be said to be an act de hors the sovereign power of the State. The subject matter of this writ petition covered by the decision rendered by the Apex Court.

Having said so, petition stands rejected.

4. Smt.Megha C.Kolekar, learned HCGP appearing for the State is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.

Sd/-

JUDGE SPS/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court