Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(vii) S.Paramasivam Achari Vs. The Head Master Govt.High School, Amur, Musiri Taluk, Trichy District and others reported in 1999 Writ L.R.525, the petitioner son had gone to the urinal attached to the school within the campus. The boy died due to the sudden collapse of the wall. It was held that the accident could have been averted, if the school had taken proper care. Therefore, a compensation of Rupees Two Lakhs was directed to be paid by the Government.

(viii) In D.Matsa Gandhi Vs. Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, reported in 2000 (III) CTC 24, this Court held that in cases where there is denial of tortious liability writ petitions cannot be maintained. However, when negligence per se is visible the same has to be construed as violation of right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the High Court has jurisdiction to grant compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At paragraph 10, this Court held as follows:-

10.In the course of argument it is brought to my notice the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Nath Bros., Exaim International Ltd., v. Best Roadways Ltd., 2000 (4) S.C.C. 553 and power of this Court under Article 226. No doubt, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not accepted the action of the High Court in granting compensation to the family of the victim who died by electrocution in a writ petition filed under Article 226. It is equally true that when disputed questions of fact arises and if there is clear denial of tortious liability remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution may not be proper. However, in the very same judgment their Lordships after saying so, in paragraph 10 have observed.

Therefore, it is too late for the respondent Board to raise the plea as if the respondent Board is not negligent and they are not liable.

12. In Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs. Sumathi and others (2000 (4) SCC 543), even though the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in cases of disputed questions of fact in existence, on the face of unequivocal denial of tortious liability, seeking remedy under Article 226 may not be proper, it was held that the same cannot be understood that in every case of tortious liability the affected party should be directed to resort to filing of suit, holding that when there is negligence on the face of it, the same to be treated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in such circumstances, to enforce the basic human rights, Article 226 can be pressed into service. On the facts of the said case, the Supreme court has come to the conclusion that a disputed questions of fact was involved, but held in the circumstances of the case that the appellant Electricity Board shall not recover the amount which has been paid to the respondents/victims. In that context, the Supreme Court has held as under:

"10 . In view of the clear proposition of law laid by this Court in Sukamani Das case (1999 (7) SCC 298) when a disputed question of fact arises and there is clear denial of any tortious liability remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution may not be proper. However, it cannot be understood as laying a law that in every case of tortious liability recourse must be had to a suit. When there is negligence on the face of it and infringement of Article 21 is there it cannot be said that there will be any bar to proceed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Right of life is one of the basic human rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In U.P. State Coop. Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey (1999 (1) SCC 741 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 389) where one of us (Wadhwa, J.) was a party, this Court after examining various decisions of the courts on the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution observed that the language of Article 226 of the Constitution does not admit of any limitation on the powers of the High Court for the exercise of jurisdiction thereunder though by various decisions of this Court with varying and divergent views, it has been held that jurisdiction under Article 226 can be exercised only when a body or authority, the decision of which is complained, was exercising its power in the discharge of public duty and that writ is a public law remedy. This Court then observed: (SCC pp. 758-59, para 27) "[It may not be necessary to examine any further the question if Article 226 makes a divide between public law and private law. Prima facie from the language of Article 226, there does not appear to exist such a divide. To understand the explicit language of the article, it is not necessary for us to rely on the decision of English courts as rightly cautioned by the earlier Benches of this Court. It does appear to us that Article 226 while empowering the High Court for issue of orders or directions to any authority or person, does not make any such difference between public functions and private functions. It is not necessary for us in this case to go into this question as to what is the nature, scope and amplitude of the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. They are certainly founded on the English system of jurisprudence. Article 226 of the Constitution also speaks of directions and orders which can be issued to any person or authority including, in appropriate cases, any Government. Under clause (1) of Article 367, unless the context otherwise requires, the General Clauses Act, 1897, shall, subject to any adaptations and modifications that may be made therein under Article 372, apply for the interpretation of the Constitution as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of the legislature of the Dominion of India. "Person" under Section 2(42) of the General Clauses Act shall include any company, or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. The Constitution is not a statute. It is a fountainhead of all the statutes. When the language of Article 226 is clear, we cannot put shackles on the High Courts to limit their jurisdiction by putting an interpretation on the words which would limit their jurisdiction. When any citizen or person is wronged, the High Court will step in to protect him, be that wrong be done by the State, an instrumentality of the State, a company or a cooperative society or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, or even an individual. Right that is infringed may be under Part III of the Constitution or any other right which the law validly made might confer upon him. But then the power conferred upon the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution is so vast, this Court has laid down certain guidelines and self-imposed limitations have been put there subject to which the High Courts would exercise jurisdiction, but those guidelines cannot be mandatory in all circumstances. The High Court does not interfere when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available or when there is an established procedure to remedy a wrong or enforce a right. A party may not be allowed to bypass the normal channel of civil and criminal litigation. The High Court does not act like a proverbial "bull in a china shop" in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226."