Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 842 (PAT)

Mostt. Vishalti Kuwar v. State Of Bihar

2012-06-20

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2012
ORDER 1. There are two petitioners before this Court who are said to be the victim of senseless and mindless violence committed on the innocent villagers of Sonabarsa on 31.05.1998. Many lives were lost which included the husband of petitioner no. 1, namely, Late Dhananjay Kumar Mishra and son of petitioner no. 2. 2. A first information report was instituted and registered as Charpokhari P.S. Case No. 46/98 dated 31.05.1998 under several sections of the Indian Penal Code including sections 307, 302 etc. Copy of F.I.R. is annexure-1 to the writ application. 3. Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner has taken this Court through the contents of the first information report which has relevance and significance. As per narration in the first information report, on the night of 30.05.1998 large number of villagers had gathered at what is known as Kali Mandir since a discourse on Ramayan was going on in the said premises. Many men and women were part of the gathering. While they all were immersed in the discourse, they all came to be surrounded by large number of persons variously armed who resorted to indiscriminate firing. More than 33 persons were named in the first information report. There are many other unknown persons who are said to have participated in the occurrence. So even by a conservative estimate, there were more than 50 people who perpetuated the said senseless or mindless violence upon innocent villagers who were immersed in religious activity and that too in a temple. One of the reasons indicated in the first information report for such an incident is said to be retaliation to some massacre which happened at village Nagri, a village supposed to be 10 Kms., away from the place of present place of crime. Matter was investigated. Chargesheets have been filed. Trial is going on, though it has not yet reached a finality. 4. As usually noticed such large scale killings or violence invariably attracts hoards of politicians as well as people from the government who make a visit and give assurances to the villagers, survivors or the victims if any. Promises are made so that some kind of sanity and peace is restored. 5. 4. As usually noticed such large scale killings or violence invariably attracts hoards of politicians as well as people from the government who make a visit and give assurances to the villagers, survivors or the victims if any. Promises are made so that some kind of sanity and peace is restored. 5. We are not concerned with the mechanism which are adopted in such cases but the issue raised in the present writ application whether certain announcements and commitments supposedly made by the Chief Minister of the State based on some kind of policy in existence in this regard, creates a right in favour of the citizen to claim benefits which included compensation. 6. Since, the announcement and assurances did create some kind of legitimate expectations in the mind of the citizens, these petitioners approached the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna by filing claims for compensation based on the assurance and the circulars issued by the State dated 20.09.1987 as well as 9.8.2000. The applicants which included the petitioners, according to them, were entitled to not only compensation as ex-gratia but may be even employment under the State, as in some of the cases bread earners of the family came to be eliminated in such senseless and mindless act of violence. 7. As usual the State dragged its feet. No decision could be taken which compelled atleast some persons to approach the High Court by filing a writ application. The High Court disposed of that writ application as would be evident from perusal of annexure-7 with a direction upon the respondent State to consider the issue, especially in light of certain frame work and the law which was laid down by the High Court in the case of Dharamshile Kuer Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2002(3) PLJR, 497. This direction of the High Court was passed in the year 2004. Consequence thereof was issuance of Annexures-8 and 9 at the level of the District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Arrah denying claim for compensation. These two decisions or communications contained in annexures 8 and 9 are subject matter of challenge in the present writ application. 8. The Court has gone through the two impugned orders. Consequence thereof was issuance of Annexures-8 and 9 at the level of the District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Arrah denying claim for compensation. These two decisions or communications contained in annexures 8 and 9 are subject matter of challenge in the present writ application. 8. The Court has gone through the two impugned orders. Reason given for rejection of the claim of the petitioners is that since the victims which included family members of the two petitioners had suffered at the hands of a registered political party, therefore, they were not entitled to the benefit of any compensation in terms of the two circulars of the State in place. The impugned orders indicate that this was the input which was given to the District Magistrate, on an enquiry or investigation made by the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur who fixed the responsibility or pin-pointed an accusing finger to a set of so called political workers belonging to C.P.I. (M.L.). This report is supposed to have been generated by the Superintendent of Police in the year 2004, after the High Court had given a clear and categorical direction for a decision. 9. Two issues arise for consideration according to the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners. Whether the reasons given for rejection is rational, cogent and satisfies not only the principles of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? or whether the reason so given is so irrational and is based on a wrong reading or interpretation of the circulars or the object or the intent of the circulars that the reason for rejection requires to be quashed through judicial intervention? 10. According to him the earlier Circulars in question which were in existence have been created with the object of reaching out to a citizen who has been on the receiving end of mindless act of violence committed by certain desperados. They could be terrorists, they could be of other groups who indulged in such kind of violence without much justification. The State government formulated a policy to not only compensate the survivors or victims of such mindless or senseless killings as also to assuage the feelings by monetary compensation to prevent retaliator action or otherwise. They could be terrorists, they could be of other groups who indulged in such kind of violence without much justification. The State government formulated a policy to not only compensate the survivors or victims of such mindless or senseless killings as also to assuage the feelings by monetary compensation to prevent retaliator action or otherwise. There are many reasons why such policies are formulated but a reading of those policies do surely compel this Court to come to the conclusion that the object of the policy, at the end of the spectrum, is the citizen and not the perpetrators. A curious interpretation which has been sought to be given by the District Magistrate that the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation, from the State, because the persons involved in the incident belong to a registered party, is like giving a license to a registered political party to take law in their own hands merely because there is some kind of statutory recognition to the said body or persons under the Peoples Representation Act. 11. In this regard one has to go back to the incident and the manner in which the crime was executed which shows depravity and heartlessness. There is nothing to indicate from any other material brought by the State that these persons who suffered in the hands of the killers were members of any rival political party or workers, which provoked the perpetrators to indulge in a massacre of the kind and whether it has any sanction and justification either in law or in custom or under any statute for a political party to commit massacre, even if it is perceived by them that their supporters were unfairly dealt with at the hands of certain persons having a commitment or ideology. There is no material on record to show that any of those victims had any thing to do with the political party or the people who committed the earlier killings in the adjoining village. Probably, they were soft targets and, therefore, dealt with so easily by the so called political workers of a registered political party. 12. There is no material on record to show that any of those victims had any thing to do with the political party or the people who committed the earlier killings in the adjoining village. Probably, they were soft targets and, therefore, dealt with so easily by the so called political workers of a registered political party. 12. There is substance in the submission made at the Bar on behalf of the petitioners that reasoning or the rationale given by the District Magistrate is based on a so called generated report of the Superintendent of Police which is also not available on record as to how it absolves the State government from its obligation to compensate the citizen or their family members who were victims of senseless and mindless violence. 13. In the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the State, stand of the District Magistrate is sought to be justified on a very strict and wrong interpretation being given to the earlier circulars of 1987 and 1990. However, they have also brought on record a new circular dated 20.12.2010 which has been issued in the background under which a decision of the High Court was rendered in the case of Dharamshila Kuer (Supra). 14. The Court has gone through the said decision and that was a case where incidence of hostile discrimination was being practiced by the State in matters of grant of compensation. Such a discriminatory and discretionary power had been struck down by the High Court holding it to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Annexure-E which is the new policy dated 20.12.2010 has come into place taking into consideration the observation of the High Court in the case of Dharamshila Kuer (Supra). 15. Even if the incidence relates to a period prior to formulation of a new policy but the Court cannot simply ignore the object and purpose behind formulation of such policy and a reading of 1987 policy or 1990 policy in juxtaposition with Annexure-E dated 20.12.2010 points to the same thing which the Court has noticed earlier that the object of these policy is to reach out to the victim and innocent citizen and not to raise a hyper technicality in matter of denial of a relief to such persons. 16. 16. The State itself has expanded the ambit and object in disbursement of such compensation and relief by including many new aspects of violence of which a citizen may be victim of, the Court is re-enforced to believe that the State was irrational by passing an order against the petitioners in terms of annexures- 8 and 9 by rejecting their claim on the ground that the perpetuators were members of a political party which is a registered party. How does it take away the effect of the sufferings at the hands of a registered party is not understood nor does the Court understand as to how it dilutes or mitigates the responsibility of the State. If such an interpretation is given, it is a kind of giving license to commit such crimes in the name of a political party and that will not be a healthy situation either for the State or the peace loving citizen of the State. 17. Both the annexures contained in annexures 8 and 9 are hereby quashed. Directions are given to the District Magistrate that he will pass a fresh order taking into consideration the latest circular dated 20.12.2010, the present order in regard to extending benefit or compensation to these two petitioners. An early decision in this regard has to be taken as the petitioners have suffered long enough not only by repeated litigations by approaching the High Court but the delayed action in such a decision. In this regard the Court fixes a time frame of three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order. 18. This writ application is accordingly allowed with the direction aforesaid.