Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (1.29 seconds)Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs Sumathi And Others on 27 April, 2000
22. Similarly, in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Sumathi and Ors.,
(2000) 4 SCC 543, it was held that when a disputed question of fact arises
and there is clear denial of any tortuous liability, remedy under Article 226
of the Constitution may not be proper. The Supreme Court carved out an
exception to this general rule by observing that, it should not be understood
that in every case of tortuous 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.
Mr. Gatakala Venkateswarlu vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 1 October, 2007
In Mr. Gatakala Venkateswarlu vs. Union of India & Anr., 128
(2006) DLT 1, a writ petition under Article 226 had been filed in the nature
of a recovery claim on account of the failure of the respondents to take
necessary steps for forwarding the application of the petitioner for
W.P.(C) 240/2010 Page 13 of 15
compensation to the United Nations Compensation Commission. Since the
case involved disputed questions of fact, which required a recording of
testimony, this Court dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner
to file a civil suit.
S.P.S. Rathore vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 6 May, 2005
24. The Supreme Court in S.P.S Rathore vs. State of Haryana, (2005) 10
SCC 1, observed that the Courts while exercising jurisdiction under Articles
32 and 226 can award compensation for the violation of fundamental rights
guaranteed by the Constitution but such a power should not be lightly
exercised. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court
was correct in directing the District Judge to conduct a an enquiry so as to
ascertain the truth of the averments made by one of the Respondent
regarding forceful withdrawal of complaints filed by her, under Article 226
of the Constitution. Relying upon its earlier decisions, as mentioned above,
the Supreme Court held that the "The sparing exercise of power under
Article 32 or Article 226 of Constitution of India for issue of directions to
conduct enquiry to determine compensation in glaring and clear cases of
rape by police officials, custody death, illegal detention of poor and helpless
cannot be resorted to in the case of present nature.". Accordingly, the
impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside.
Smt. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalit Behera ... vs State Of Orissa And Ors on 24 March, 1993
In Nilabati Behera (Supra), a writ petition was filed under Article 32
of the Constitution for determining the claim of compensation consequent
upon the death of petitioner's son in police custody. In view of the denial by
W.P.(C) 240/2010 Page 11 of 15
the State that death was due to police harassment when the deceased was in
police custody, the Supreme Court gave a direction to the District Judge, to
hold an inquiry into the matter and submit a report. The District Judge
reached the conclusion that it was a case of custodial death. In view of the
dispute as to the correctness of the findings in the report of the District
Judge, the matter was examined afresh by the Supreme Court in the light of
the objections raised. The Court also reached the same conclusion on a
reappraisal of the evidence adduced at the enquiry. Upon the factum of
custodial death being proved, the Supreme Court proceeded to award
compensation. It observed that monetary compensation, for contravention of
the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, by recourse to
Articles 32 and 226 would be justified, when that is the only practicable
mode of redress available for the contravention made by the State or its
servants in the purported exercise of their powers.
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Rudul Sah vs State Of Bihar And Another on 1 August, 1983
In Rudul Shah (Supra), where compensation was awarded, the
Supreme Court was faced with a situation where the petitioner who was
W.P.(C) 240/2010 Page 10 of 15
acquitted by the Court of Session was released from jail more than 14 years
after he was acquitted. The petitioner approached the Court asking for his
release on the ground that his detention in the jail was unlawful and claimed
compensation for the illegal incarceration. The petitioner was released from
jail and as regards the compensation for illegal detention the Court held that
though Article 32 cannot be used as a substitute for the enforcement of rights
and obligations which can be enforced efficaciously through the ordinary
processes of Courts, however, in order to rectify the grave injustice
perpetrated upon the petitioner by illegally detaining him in jail for 14 years
after his acquittal, which violated his fundamental right to life and liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Court in the
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32, can pass an order for the
payment of money if such an order is in the nature of compensation
consequential upon the deprivation of a fundamental right. The order of
compensation passed was in the nature of a palliative, leaving the petitioner
the liberty to file a suit for compensation, wherein the nice points of facts
and law would be adjudicated upon.
Chairman Grid Corporation Of Orissa ... vs Smt. Sukamani Das And Anr. Etc on 15 September, 1999
In Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) and Ors. v.
Sukamani Das (Smt.) and Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 298 the question which arose
for consideration was, whether the High Court can under Article 226 of the
Constitution award compensation for death caused due to electrocution on
account of negligence, when the liability was emphatically denied on the
ground that the death had not occurred as a result of negligence, but because
W.P.(C) 240/2010 Page 12 of 15
of an act of God or of acts of some other persons. The Supreme Court held
that it is the settled legal position that where disputed questions of facts are
involved, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper
remedy. Therefore, questions as to whether death occurred due to negligence
or due to act of god or of some third person could not be decided properly on
the basis of affidavits only, but should be decided by the civil court after
appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties.
1