Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nein Singh Dhurve vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 December, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70575
1 WP-47813-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 16th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 47813 of 2025
NEIN SINGH DHURVE AND ANOTHER
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devendra Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Alok Agnihotri - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
I. To call for entire relevant record.
II. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus direction to the Respondent no.1 & 2 to decide issue which sent through legal notice dated 11.09.2025 as expeditiously contained as Annexure-P/2.
III. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus direction to the respondents to payment of compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs to each petitioner as violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
IV. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus direction to the respondents to complied the order dated 30.07.2025 passed in CRA-306/2024 in regard appropriate action against involved concerned I.O. and other Police Personnel.
V. Any other relief together cost of the petition which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.
2 . The petitioners have filed this petition seeking direction to the respondents to decide pending representation expeditiously with respect to Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 27-12-2025 14:46:27 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70575 2 WP-47813-2025 grant of compensation and further direction to the respondents to comply with the judgment dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Cr.A. No.306/2024 for taking appropriate action against concerned I.O. and other Police Personnel. Petitioners have also sent a legal notice to the Authorities vide notice dated 11/09/2025.
3 . The compensation is claimed on the ground that petitioners have been acquitted in a criminal case by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.306/2024. Learned counsel for the petitioners have failed to point out any legal provision to claim compensation.
4. It is the settled proposition of law that the compensation cannot be claimed on the lapses on the part of the authorities in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior Bench in the case of Rasul Khan vs. State of M.P. (Writ Appeal No.1253 of 2020, dated 21.12.2020) has held that no writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable seeking compensation. The remedy is elsewhere. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: -
"From perusal of the record, it is seen that admitted position in the present case is that the petitioner had approached State Govt. for financial help for surgery and cochlear implant of both of his sons. The amount was sanctioned by the State Govt. and cheque was issued in favour of the hospital but unfortunately, the cheque was dishonored and on the complaint being made by the hospital against the petitioner, FIR was got registered which on investigation was found to be false, therefore, the petitioner was discharged. But during aforesaid period of investigation, the sons have attained majority and now, there cannot be any surgery or cochlear implant done due to their attaining majority. The most unfortunate part of the entire case is that the financial assistance/help issued by the State Govt. in favour of the petitioner could not be extended to him owing to the reason that cheque issued has been dishonored. Now, sons of the petitioner could not get cochlear implant done and they have to live entire life with the ear ailment. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred writ petition claiming Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 27-12-2025 14:46:27 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70575 3 WP-47813-2025 compensation to the tune of Rs.80 lac. It is settled principles of law that compensation cannot be claimed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a matter of right. Three Judges Bench of Supreme court in the case of Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ananta Bhattacharya and Others reported in (2004) Volume 6 SCC 213 has held that public remedy for the purpose of grant of compensation can be resorted to only when the fundamental rights of a citizen are violated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and not otherwise. It has further been held that it is not every violation of provisions of Constitution or statute which could enable the court to direct for grant of compensation. The power of the court of judicial review to grant compensation to public remedy is limited. In other words, the power to grant compensation is confined only to the cases of violation of fundamental rights.
In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Uphar Tragedy Victims Association and others reported in (2011) Volume 14 SCC 481 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that public law causes of action to claim compensation for breach of fundamental right is described as constitutional tort and in such cases, constitutional courts are expected to vindicate the parties constitutionally, compensate them for resulting harm and also to defer future misconduct. However, this public law power/constitutional Courts to grant compensation is seldom exercise merely due to violation of some statutory provisions resulting in monetary loss to the claimants. In most of the cases such powers are exercised where there is intense serious violation of personal liberty, right to life or violation of human rights.
In the case of Rajendra Singh Pathaniya and others Vs. State of NCT New Delhi reported in (2011) volume 13 SCC 329, it has been held that the court can award compensation for violation of fundamental rights against the State Govt. or a public servant only after making proper inquiry. From aforesaid initiation of law, it is evident that proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India of public law remedy for the purpose of grant of compensation can be resorted to only in the cases of violation of fundamental rights of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
After going through the entire pleadings and considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that as the petitioner has prayed for compensation which cannot be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution India, therefore, no illegality is said to have been committed by the writ court. Accordingly, finding no merit in the writ appeal, the appeal is dismissed. However, liberty is extended to the petitioner/appellant to approach appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance."
5. If the aforesaid proposition is applied to the facts and circumstances in the present case, no directions can be issued granting compensation to the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid, the remedy of the petitioners is elsewhere. As petitioners have already initiated proceedings by issuance of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 27-12-2025 14:46:27 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70575 4 WP-47813-2025 legal notice to the respondents for claiming compensation, they may approach the Civil Court for redressal of their grievances.
6 . Under these circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioners.
7 . Accordingly, the petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed. However, petitioners are at liberty to approach the Civil Court for redressal of their grievances and for claiming compensation.
8. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE Shbhnkr Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 27-12-2025 14:46:27