Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This appeal under clause 12 of the Letters Pattern is directed against the judgment dated I8th May, 1992, passed, by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 273/1991. The judgment under appeal, however, is not a detailed one because it is based on a judgment earlier pronounced by the learned single Judge on 8th March, 1991 in Writ Petition No. 5/1990 in the case of M/s. Inder Puri General Store v. Union of India (also reported in AIR 1992 J & K 11).

2. It shall be advantageous and desirable to take note of facts leading to the filing of the present appeal by the State of Jammu and Kashmir. On 13 and January, 1989, the city of Jammu witnessed some unfortunate communal riots involving two communities. As a result of sudden outbreak of these communal riots, a particular community suffered extensive losses with respect to its property, including damages and losses to the shops situated and located in various areas and bazards of the town. It appears that consequent upon the losses and damage suffered by such people in the aforesaid communal riots of 13 January, 1989, they attempted and tried to get help from the State Government so as to be compensated for such loss and damage but having failed therein, approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 5/1990. In the petition entitled M/s. Indu Puri General Store v. Union of India and another, as many as nine persons had joined as petitioners to claim compensation from the Union of India and the State of Jammu and Kashmir, for the losses suffered by them to the extent indicated in the annexures filed with that writ petition. For claiming such compensation in that petition, those petitioners had sought the mandamus from this Court directing respondents to pay the amounts reflected in Annexures to the petition in favour of the petitioners. Vide his detailed judgment dated 8th March, 1991, the learned single Judge of this Court allowing the aforesaid petition did in fact issue a mandamus to the respondent No. 2, that is, State of Jammu and Kashmir to pay to those petitioners the compensation to the extent of loss suffered by them as it was assessed by a Committee constituted by the Government for this purpose. It is worthwhile to mention here that immediately on the occurrence of the communal riots, in its aftermath, the State Government vide its order dated 23-1-1989, sanctioned ex-gratia relief in favour of the persons whose property hail suffered damage. Vide Government Order No. Rev/ER/21 of 1989 dated 23-1-1989, the Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir accorded sanction to the grant of ex-gratia relief in favour of persons, apart from some others whose property had suffered damage during the communal riots occurred on 13-1-1989. One of the reliefs sanctioned relating to the properties reads as under:--

"Relief at 10 per cent, of the estimated loss caused to the moveable or immoveable property including vehicles of all categories subject to the maximum of Rs. 25,000/- in each case. This was ipso facto apply irrespective of the insurance claim which the sufferers will get from insurance companies in due course of time."

3. On 20-1-1989, Deputy Commissioner, Jarnmu, had issued an order whereby a Committee of two persons, namely, Tehsildar and "Additional Tehsildar, Jammu, was constituted to assess and calculate the losses to the property which might have occured due to the aforesaid communal riots of 13th January, 1989. On 6-2-1989, the Deputy Commissioner had sanctioned ex-gratia relief in favour of some victims of these riots on the basis of the representation of the aforesaid Committee and in accordance with the mandate contained in Govt. Order dated 23-1-1989 (supra).

5. For disposing of this appeal we summoned the record of Writ Petition No. 5/90 and found that in that case, the appellant-State had filed its counter in answer to the writ petition. Since the counter in that petition dealt with all the points raised and urged in the present case, we had no hesitation in considering that counter for the purposes of ascertaining the facts in the present case.

6. The question as to whether the respon-' dents in the present appeal, who were the writ petitioners in Writ Petition No. 273/1991 should be held entitled to any compensation as a matter of right indeed requires our consideration and determination in this appeal. This question is based on a careful examination of the liability of the State in the peculiar facts of the present case. If the State is indeed found liable to compensate the petitioners for-the losses suffered because of communal riots,.we should have no hesitation in upholding the judgment and reiterating directions to the State to pay amounts in question to the writ petitioners. If, however, on consideration and examination of the issues involved, we find that the State cannot be held liable in the circumstances of the present case to compensate the writ petitioners for the losses suffered, we should have equally no hesitation in allowing this appeal by observing that the directions issued by the learned single Judge were not based on correct application of law.

12. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners tried to persuade us to take the view that the aforesaid paragraphs did contain such allegations which would constitute dereliction of duties, negligence and lack of required care on the part of the State in protecting the properties of the citizens. We must say that we do not agree with their submissions because we found that the paragraphs are not only vague but so woefully deficient of such allegations that not a single line, not a single sentence, not a word in these paragraphs, in our view amounts to any such allegations which would constitute any culpability on the part of the State. We are saying so because we are conscious that it was the duty of the writ petitioners to have specifically alleged as to how, in what manner and why was the State negligent. In the context of the facts of the present case, the minimum that was required to be pleaded was the background relating to the outbreak of the communal riots, did the State have any prior knowledge of the plans of miscreants and anti-social elements, based on such prior knowledge, did the State make any arrangements and, if so, were the arrangements adequate or not. The details of the processions etc. which were taken out, the route of the procession, anticipated trouble etc. were the factors which ought to have been pleaded by the petitioners in their writ petition. We are saying so because, a situation can exist where the State had no knowledge of any plans of any procession or whether communal "riots occurred all of a sudden without any premeditated plan, without any previous conspiracy or design. Whenever a communal riot or a disturbance takes place all of a sudden, without any notice or warning and without any preparation or premeditation and if as a result, the disturbances take place in a very very short spell of time, and if consequently some property is damaged, surely the State squarely cannot be blamed for not protecting citizens' property. After all, it is not expected that in every town, every house, every shop, every property shall be guarded by the State around the clock. Actually one does not expect the State to do such guarding every-where, every time. After all some planning is to come in such management of protection system.