Madras High Court
R.Venkatraman vs The Secretary To Government on 13 December, 2010
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M.Venugopal
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13/12/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P(MD)No.1263 of 2008 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2008 1.R.Venkatraman 2.V.S.Thirupura Sundari ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 4.The Inspector of Police, Vilampatti Police Station, Dindigul District. ... Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to enquire into the second petitioner's representation dated 08.09.2007 and to pay appropriate compensation to the petitioners herein. !For Petitioners ... Mr.G.R.Swaminathan ^For Respondents ... Mr.D.Sasikumar, Govt. Advocate * * * * * :ORDER
The petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus in directing the first respondent to enquire into the second petitioner's representation dated 08.09.2007 and to pay the appropriate compensation to the petitioners.
2. The second petitioner in the writ petition has averred that she is a permanent resident of Vilampatti village, Nilakottai Taluk in Dindigul District. According to her, there is an ancient temple dedicated to Arulmighu Sri Muthalamman. Her forefathers are the hereditary trustees of the temple. After the death of her father in the year 1981, her mother Avudayammal has been requested by the villagers to assume the charge of the temple. Sincer her mother declined to assume the said responsibility, her uncle namely Chidambaram Pillai, the brother of her father, continued to act as a hereditary trustee. Her uncle towards the end of his life has committed the acts of misappropriation and therefore, he has been suspended from hereditary trusteeship by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department. Her uncle questioning the action of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, filed the suit before the civil Court and the same has been dismissed. Hence, a group of villagers known as Kavalkarargal, has started to act against him, which resulted in projecting a petition against him. The villagers ensured that the temple Hundial/Offering Box is not opened. The said Hundial has remained as unopened since April 2006. The said Chidambaram Pillai died on 23.07.2006. Thereafter, the villagers persuaded her mother Avudayammal to become the hereditary trustee. However, on account of her age, she has not accepted the responsibility for the second time.
3. Since the villagers endeavoured to assume the charge of the temple, the second petitioner's mother filed the suit in O.S.No.13 of 2007 on the file of the learned District Judge, Dindigul and also prayed for interim injunction in her favour. She also projected W.P.No.2869 of 2007 before this Court praying for a direction being issued to the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Madurai, to consider her petition dated 12.01.2007 in respect of the said temple. The festival has been successfully celebrated.
4. The officials from the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department sent an information that they intend to come down to the village for the purpose of opening the Hundial for the year 2007. The second petitioner's mother and the second petitioner informed the Executive Officer in-charge of the temple not to open the temple on account of the changed atmosphere prevailing in the village. Because of that, they have known that a group of villagers known as Kavalkarargal namely Deivendran vagaiyara, Ochappan vagaiyara, Sellam vagaiyara, Hitler vagaiyara, Ranjangam vagaiyara, Chinnasamy vagaiyara, have been bent upon creating trouble if there has been any endeavour at the opening of the Hundial.
5. Also, they received the information that the said group planned to rob the Hundial collection. However, the officials of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department have come to the temple along with the police and opened the Hundial in the presence of public. When the counting process has been going on, a group of over 200 villagers led by the aforesaid group entered into the temple and has brutally beaten up not only the general public but also the policemen and the officials of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department. The vehicle in which the officials have travelled has also been brutally damaged. Hundial has been unlawfully taken away by the said group. The said group also marched towards the second petitioner's house and they forcibly broke open into their house.
6. At that point of time, the mother of the second petitioner, the second petitioner and 13 years old daughter have been present. Since the unruly mob used every weapon available to them including boulders and huge stones. They completely ransacked her house. The second petitioner has been physically dragged out and her clothes has been torn and robbed of gold jewels which she has been wearing. The said group also has broken open the wooden bureau in which she kept a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) for redeeming a mortgaged property. The mob also damaged almost every articles in the second petitioner's house including T.V, Kitchen utensils, fans tube lights, sofa set etc and nothing has been left out.
7. The second petitioner's daughter literally protected the second petitioner when she has been brutally beaten by the sharp edged weapon, resulting in head injuries and also she has been dragged for quite a distance. At that point of time, the second petitioner's Advocate namely the first petitioner and the Chairman of Nilakottai Panchayat Union have been coming to the spot. The violent mob hurled stones at them and they suffered head injuries. Some of the ladies of the locality managed to take the second petitioner and her mother to the police station and since the second petitioner was profusely bleeding, she has lost her consciousness and has been taken to the police station.
8. The violent mob also started pelting stones at the police station. The persons in the police station sent information to the superior officers for sending additional force. The additional force arrived at about 09.00 p.m, but the arrival of the additional force has not deterred the violent mob. There has been a big battle between the police and the said group. The missiles of various kinds were aimed at the police station and the number of policemen including the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Revenue Officials suffered injuries. One woman police constable suffered injury on her eyes and she lost her eyesight completely. Then, the vehicle of the Superintendent of Police has also been damaged and half a dozen buses were badly damaged. Then, the police has resorted to lathi charge which is of no avail. Petrol bombs have been hurled at the police station and chilli powder has been thrown on the woman official who is the Revenue Divisional Officer. Even after the arrival of the Inspector General of Police, the situation has not been brought under control etc.
9. At about 02.00 a.m, the situation has been brought under control after the police issued firing orders. Thereafter, the mob disbursed and they have been taken to hospital around 05.00 a.m. The second petitioner has taken treatment in Vadamalayan Hospital for nearly a month spending a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only). The first petitioner has also been admitted in Harley Ram Nursing Home. Earlier, the local police has taken the first petitioner to the Government Hospital, Nilakottai, who issued the wound certificate. Subsequently, the first petitioner has taken treatment at Harley Ram Nursing Home. Though he has not been formally admitted as an inpatient, he has taken treatment on regular basis for over a month.
10. Because of the nature of the injuries suffered by the first petitioner, he has not attended to his professional work for over two months. He has suffered trauma and broken health. The medical report of the first petitioner shows the nature of mental and physical damages. The medical report of the second petitioner also shows that the mental and the physical damages which she has suffered. The second petitioner has been denied the protection of law. She has submitted a representation dated 08.09.2007 to the first respondent demanding payment of compensation, wherein she has pointed out that as many as five F.I.Rs have been lodged and there has been a report by the revenue authorities as well as to the police. Even though a representation has been received, till date no action has been taken. According to the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to protection of law which has not been forthcoming as a result of which the petitioners have suffered severe physical injuries and put to mental trauma.
11. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that there has been a total break down of the administration and the law and order problem taken on 29.05.2007 and the State machinery ought to keep a vigilance and has public duty before the occurrence of mob violence and when such instance occurred, it is the duty of the State to compensate the victims and moreover, till date, the police have not recovered the amount robbed from the second petitioner's house which has been totally ransacked and looted.
12. Advancing his arguments, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the fourth respondent police station is situated at a distance of 200 metres from the second petitioner's house and the inability to prevent the occurrence amounts to abdication of performance of a statutory duty on the State's part. Even before the occurrence, frantic calls from the second petitioner through B.S.N.L, phone to the fourth respondent police station. Likewise, Kottaisamy, Chairman of Nilakottai Union has also made calls from B.S.N.L phone to the fourth respondent police station, but inspite of the same, the local police have been unable to prevent the subject occurrence.
13. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Government of Tamil Nadu is vicariously responsible for the violation on the part of the local administration and it is obligated to compensate the victims.
14. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, it is mentioned that the petitioners have been attacked by the unruly mob in regard to the opening of the temple Hundial by Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department officials on 29.05.2007 and also ransacked and damaged the second petitioner's property and the officials vehicles.
15. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that on the complaint of the petitioners 1 and 2, the cases have been registered in Cr.No.59 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 432, 323, 324, 307, 427, 379 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(2) of the TNPPDL Act, and in Cr.No.60 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 307 I.P.C. Both the petitioners have been admitted in Government Hospital, Nilakkottai, as per Medical Memos 26/ML/P2/PS/2007 dated 29.05.2007 and later, they have been referred to Government Rajaji Hospital for further treatment.
16. The learned Government Advocate contends that on information being given by the police officials of the hooliganism of unruly mob, to their superiors, additional police force has been deputed to quell the violent mob and to defuse the tends situation, the police force has been perforced to lathi charge the mob which has not been sufficient to deter the act of the violent mob and therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer has issued the shooting orders. Normalcy has been restored after the registration of the F.I.Rs., viz., in Cr.Nos.58 of 2007, 59 of 2007, 60 of 2007, 61 of 2007 and 62 of 2007 under relevant provisions of law. Most of the accused have been arrested and rest of them has surrendered before the Court. The Investigation in the aforesaid cases have been completed and P.R.C. numbers have been assigned as 24 of 2008, 18 of 2008, 19 of 2008, 23 of 2008 and 20 of 2008 respectively. All the cases are pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai. The petitioners have been taken to the Government Hospital, Nilakottai and admitted for treatment. Later, they have been referred to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, where all modern and highly sophisticated medical facilities are available and very good treatment could be offered to them, but the petitioners 1 and 2 have chosen to get themselves admitted in private hospitals namely Harely Ram Nursing Home and Vadamalayan Hospital, Madurai, for which they have sought for compensation from the Government which cannot be considered. The Officials of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, the police and the Revenue Department officials have also sustained injuries so also the general public.
17. Proceeding further, the learned Government Advocate submits that there has been no break down of administration and law and order machinery on 29.05.2007 as normalcy has been ensured and the situation has been brought under the control on that day itself. Further investigation reveals that no theft has been committed. The entire police strength have been deputed to control the mob and one or two police personnel have been present in the police station. The allegation of dereliction on the part of the Officials is unsustainable. Accordingly, he prays for the dismissal of this writ petition.
18. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the materials available on record carefully.
19. In S.C.No.77 of 2010 (P.R.C.No.18 of 2008 in Cr.No.59 of 2007 of Vilampatti Police Station, Dindigul District), the second petitioner in this writ petition is the complainant. In the F.I.R, the accused are mentioned as (1) Manikandan, Vilampatti, (2) Sundaram, S/o.Pandian Pillai, (3) Essakkalai, S/o.Deivendran, (4) Deivendran's brother's son, and others. In S.C.No.77 of 2010, there are A.1 to A.103 against whom a final report has been filed by the Inspector of Police, Vilampatti Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 450, 307 read with 149 I.P.C and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1992. The case is posted to 21.01.2011 for framing of charges.
20. In S.C.No.78 of 2010 (P.R.C.No.19 of 2008 in Cr.No.60 of 2007 of Vilampatti Police Station, Dindigul District), the first petitioner in this writ petition is the complainant. In the F.I.R, the accused are mentioned as (1) Alagumalai S/o.Parvathi, Vilampatti, (2) Dhanasekaran, S/o.Ponnaiyan, Vilampatti, and other known persons. In S.C.No.78 of 2010, there are A.1 to A.103 against whom a final report has been filed by the Inspector of Police, Vilampatti, under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307, 506(ii) I.P.C read with Section 149 I.P.C. The case is posted for framing of the charges on 21.01.2011.
21. The first petitioner herein is reported to have expired.
22. In the F.I.R. in Cr.No.59 of 2007 (S.C.No.77 of 2010), the second petitioner being the complainant has among other things stated that due to previous enmity in regard to Muthalammal Koil Trust affair and the counting of Hundial, the persons belonging to her village, namely Deivendran's son, his brother's son Ramesh, Chella Pillai's son Manikandan and other men and women belonging to their village who can be identified on seeing, have unlawfully entered into her house and broke open the door and Manikandan and Pandian Pillai's son Sundaram with their iron rod, have uttered that she is responsible for counting of Hundial and therefore, finish her off and attacked on her forehead, head, right shoulder, two legs and caused blood injuries to her etc.
23. Likewise, the first petitioner in his F.I.R in Cr.No.60 of 2007, (S.C.No.78 of 2010) being the complainant has stated that he is the family Advocate of Muthalamman Koil Trustee Avudayammal and he has conducted many cases on behalf of her and on 29.05.2007, he has come in the afternoon at about 12.00 noon to Vilampatti and at that time, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Officials have come for opening the Hundial of the aforesaid temple and he has come to Vilampatti and advised the trustee and further, he has also appeared for the former trustees before the District Court, Dindigul and obtained an order and on that basis, the trustee Avudayammal has conducted the festival in a grand manner and that Vilampatti Kavalkarargal created a problem and trespassed into the house of the trustee and damaged the belongings. Further, on seeing himself entering into the trustee's house at 04.00 p.m, Alagumalai S/o.Parvathi, and Dhanasekaran, S/o.Ponnaiyan, and other known persons uttered that he is conducting the case for them and obtained favourable order and by shouting, the aforesaid persons have beaten him, as a result of which there has been bleeding on over his body and they chased him by saying that they will not leave him alive and he has escaped from them and that for lodging of the complaint at about 04.15 p.m, he has come to the police station and has remained there and also the accused and others have attacked the police station etc.
24. The learned Counsel for the petitioners cites the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in P.P.M.Thangaiah Nadar Firm, rep.by its Partner, T.P.Prakasam, No.154, New Colony, Tuticorin, and others v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Chief Secretary, Fort St.George, Chennai-9, and others reported in 2006(5) CTC 97, wherein at page 103 and 104, in paragraphs 12 to 14, it is observed hereunder:
"12. It is no doubt true that by Forty-fourth Amendment to the Constitution, Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 have been deleted, but by virtue of the very same Amendment, Article 300-A has been included, which is to the following effect:
?300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.? No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.? As a matter of fact, Clause (1) of Article 31 has been shifted from Part III, that is to say, from Part relating to Fundamental Rights, to Article 300-A. Even though the right to acquire and hold property has ceased to be a Fundamental Right, it cannot be contended even for a moment that right to hold the property has ceased to be a legal right. In fact, such a right has been recognised as a ?Constitutional right? under Article 300-A. If any person's property is taken away by the Executive without authority of law, such person would be entitled to legal relief on the ground that such action is in contravention of Article 300- A. However, since such right has been brought outside the purview of Fundamental Rights, the aggrieved person may not have any right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 for violation of Article 300-A and his remedy would be under Article 226 or by a Civil Suit, depending upon the facts and circumstances.
13. In the decision reported in Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1995 SC 142, the right to property under Article 300-A has been recognised as a constitutional right. If, without providing for payment of compensation or without taking recourse to any provision relating to land acquisition, a person is forcibly deprived of his property, such a person can obviously approach a Court of law, including the High Court under Article 226.
Such an exigency has been recognised by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others v. Manohar, 2005 (2) SCC 126, where it has been observed as follows:
?"7. Ours is a constitutional democracy and the rights available to the citizens are declared by the Constitution. Although Article 19(1)(f) was deleted by the Forty-fourth Amendment to the Constitution, Article 300-A has been placed in the Constitution, which reads as follows:
?"300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law - No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law."
8. This is a case where we find utter lack of legal authority for deprivation of the respondent's property by the appellants who are State authorities. In our view, this case was an eminently fit one for exercising the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In our view, the High Court was somewhat liberal in not imposing exemplary costs on the appellants. We would have perhaps followed suit, but for the intransigence displayed before us."?
14. Therefore, our conclusion is notwithstanding the deletion of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31, in case where a person is deprived of his property without authority of law, such person can protect the right recognised under Article 300-A by approaching the High Court under Article 226, of course within the known parameters of jurisdiction under Article 226."
25. Also, in the aforesaid decision, at page 119 in paragraph 38, it is held as follows:
"38. Now the inevitable end of the journey or may be beginning of another. In view of the various decisions noticed by us and many other decisions referred to in such decisions, the following conclusions can be reached. The State is not necessarily liable in every case where there is loss of life or damage to the property during rioting. Where, however, it is established that the officers of the State ordained with duty of maintaining law and order have failed to protect the life, liberty and property of person and such failure amounts to dereliction of duty, the State would be liable to pay compensation to the victim. Such liability can be enforced through Public Law remedy or Common Law remedy. Where, necessary facts to establish culpable negligence on the part of the officials are available, the High Court under Article 226 can issue appropriate direction. Where, however, the main aspect relating to culpable negligence of the officer is seriously disputed, filing of suit may be more appropriate remedy. No hard and fast rule can be laid down on these aspects and obviously the availability of remedy under Article 226 would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Compensation for loss to the property can also be claimed under Article 226 and merely because right to property has been deleted from Chapter of Fundamental Rights and has been recognised as a Constitutional right, would not disentitle the High Court to examine that question in any appropriate case."
26. It is to be borne in mind that the State's tortious liability is recognised by the Constitution of India. In this connection it is to be pointed out that Article 294(b) of the Constitution of India, specifies the liability of the Union Government or the State Government which may arise 'out of any contract or otherwise'. The term 'otherwise' clearly suggests that the said liability may arise for tortious acts as well. Article 300 of the Constitution of India, determines the extent of such liability by and which the Government of a State is liable for tortious acts of its officers, servants or employees, but, such liability generally cannot be enforced through a Writ. An affected/aggrieved party has a right to approach the competent authority/Court to receive damages or compensation in accordance with the law of the land. In a case where a fundamental right of a person is violated, he can seek appropriate relief either under Article 32 or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the cause of the affected/aggrieved person is a valid one, then a Writ Court may entertain his writ petition by enforcing his fundamental right.
27. In Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd., v. Ananta Bhattacharjee reported in (2004) 6 SCC 213, the Honourable Apex Court has held that 'a direction to pay compensation in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution is permissible as a public law remedy and resorted to only in case of violation of fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and not otherwise'. One cannot forget an important fact that it is not every violation of the provisions of the Constitution or a statute which would enable the Court to award compensation by means of an issuance of a direction. Admittedly, the power of the Court of judicial review to award compensation in public law remedy is a limited one.
28. The compensation is in the nature of exemplary damages awarded against the wrongdoer for the breach of its public law duty and is independent of the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in an action based on tort, through a suit instituted in a Court of competent jurisdiction or/and prosecute the offender under the penal law.
29. In a case of tortious liability of the State or breach of duty or its instrumentality, the person aggrieved has to approach a Court of law for airing his grievances and normally, he cannot invoke writ jurisdiction of the Honourable Supreme Court or of a High Court. However, if the duty is of a public nature or there is violation, breach or infringement of a fundamental right by an act or omission on the part of the authority, it is open to an individual who has suffered a 'legal wrong' to approach the jurisdiction of the Honourable Apex Court or of the High Court by filing a writ petition. In that event, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, a relief may be granted to the person wronged without asking him to avail a remedy under private law.
30. As far as the present case is concerned, the petitioners have been attacked by the unruly mob of the second petitioner's village in connection with the opening of the temple Hundial by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Officials on 29.05.2007 and the mob has ransacked and damaged the second petitioner's properties, besides the vehicles of the Officials. The first petitioner (since deceased) has been the family Advocate of the second petitioner and has conducted several cases for them. He has also been attacked and he has also sustained injuries.
31. The relief sought for in the present writ petition filed by the petitioners is for an issuance of a direction by this Court in directing the first respondent/Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009, to enquire into the second petitioner's representation dated 08.09.2007 and to pay the appropriate compensation to the petitioners.
32. In the representation of the second petitioner dated 08.09.2007 addressed to the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009, the second petitioner has prayed for a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to be paid to her by the District administration and further if an enquiry is held in this regard, she would have been present herself and deposed in support of her claim etc.
33. It is to be seen that two Sessions Cases in S.C.No.77 of 2010 (arising out of P.R.C.No.18 of 2008 in Cr.No.59 of 2007 on the file of the Vilampatti Police Station) and S.C.No.78 of 2010 (arising out of P.R.C.No.19 of 2008 in Cr.No.60 of 2007 on the file of the Vilampatti Police Station) are posted to 21.01.2011 for framing of the charges. In both the Sessions Cases, there are about 103 persons have been shown as accused and they have been charged under various Sections of Indian Penal Code. The second petitioner in her representation dated 08.09.2007 addressed to the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009, has among other things stated that the incident on 29.05.2007 has taken place because of the total break down of the administration in her village and in that incident, she has been injured and she has taken treatment in Vadamalayan Hospital by spending a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) towards the medical expenses and as a citizen, she is entitled to protection of law.
34. In short, she has demanded a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) from the State Exchequer because of the alleged total break down of administration in her village.
35. Only if the petitioners are able to establish that the Officers of the State who enjoined the duty to maintain the law and order, have failed to protect the life and property of a person, then the petitioners are entitled to either enforce the Common Law remedy or a Public Law remedy. In the instant case, the submissions of the petitioners in the writ petition that on the date of the incident viz, 29.05.2007, there has been a total break down of law and order machinery in the village of the second petitioner and that the State is vicariously responsible for the violation on the part of the local administration and therefore, it is obligated to compensate the victims, are all seriously disputed by the respondents. Then, in that event, the filing of the suit to obtain damages or compensation in accordance with law of the land, is the appropriate remedy. The availability of the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and in this regard, no hard and fast rule can be laid down, as opined by this Court.
36. The object of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an enforcement and not an establishment of a right. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be converted into a suit.
37. In general, a disputed question of fact is not to be investigated in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the right claimed by a person requires detail examination, then, the same cannot be established in a summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the considered opinion of this Court.
38. At this juncture, this Court worth recalls the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Burmah Construction Company v. The State of Orissa and others reported in AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1320, at page 1321, wherein it is laid down as follows:
"The High Court normally does not entertain a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India to enforce a civil liability arising out of a breach of contract or a tort to pay an amount of money due to the claimant and leaves it to the aggrieved party to agitate the question in a civil suit filed for that purpose. But an order for payment of money may sometimes be made in a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution against the State or against an officer of the state to enforce a statutory obligation. Where the petition under Art.226 is for enforcement of the liability of the Collector imposed by S.14 of the Orissa Salex Tax Act it can only be allowed subject to the restrictions which have been imposed by the proviso. It is not open to the claimant to rely upon the statutory right and to ignore the restrictions subject to which the right is made enforceable."
39. Be that as it may, in view of the prayer made by the petitioners in this writ petition only to direct the first respondent to enquire into the second petitioner's representation dated 08.09.2007 and to pay the appropriate compensation to the petitioners, this Court, without going into the merits of the matter, directs the first respondent herein to dispose of the representation of the second petitioner dated 08.09.2007 as per law in a dispassionate manner uninfluenced or untrammelled by any of the observations made by this Court in this writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation dated 08.09.2007 from the second petitioner. Further, the second petitioner is also directed to furnish a copy of the representation dated 08.09.2007 to the first respondent within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
40. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
rsb To
1.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
4.The Inspector of Police, Vilampatti Police Station, Dindigul District.