Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1507 (GAU)

Lalvullien v. State of Manipur

2017-12-05

KH.NOBIN SINGH, N.KOTISWAR SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : N. Kotiswar Singh, J. Heard Mr. Serto T. Kom, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. A. Romenkumar, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. Julius Riamei for respondents No. 1 to 5 and Mr. R.S. Reisang, Ld. Senior Government Advocate for the respondents No. 6 to 9. 2. This PIL has been filed by two petitioners claiming to be socially spirited persons relating to an incident which occurred on 8th May, 2015 at Tieulien Village under Parbung Police Station in Churachandpur District in the State of Manipur where one Mr. Malsawmkima, a resident of Sakawrdi Village of Mizoram was allegedly killed by personnel of Mizoram Police after being picked up from Tieulien village near the river bank of Barak river located near the said village and some villagers were also allegedly tortured by the Mizoram Police personnel. The petitioners have sought for a direction for prosecuting the personnel of Mizoram Police allegedly involved in the killing of the said Malsawmkima and for payment of compensation to the family of the said deceased Malsawmkima and 6(six) others who were allegedly tortured by the aforesaid Mizoram Police personnel and other incidental reliefs. 3. The respondents have filed the respective responses contesting this petition. The State of Mizoram and other functionaries under the Mizoram Government have been impleaded as Respondents No. 1 to 5 in this PIL. The State of Mizoram (Respondents No. 1 and 2) have filed an affidavit opposing this petition and also have raised the preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of this petition. Since the maintainability of this petition has been raised, it has been felt necessary that this issue should be decided first before proceeding with the issues raised and accordingly parties were heard at length on the issue of maintainability of this PIL. 4. It is the stand of the Respondents No. 1 and 2 representing the Mizoram Government that the respondents (viz, the State of Mizoram and its Police personnel) are not amenable to the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court but to Gauhati High Court and hence, the present petition is not maintainable. It has been also contended that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the petition seeking relief for benefit of third person or persons. It has been also contended that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the petition seeking relief for benefit of third person or persons. They have contended that the petition has been filed seeking financial relief for third persons and the petitioners have also failed to show that they have exhausted all the alternative remedies available under the law and the public interest litigation cannot be regarded as shortcut to obtain relief when normal remedy under the law is available, much less when criminal proceedings are pending. It has been also contended that criminal cases have been set into motion relating to the said incident and criminal investigations are being carried out under the law and as such, the reliefs sought in the present PIL are not maintainable. 5. Mr. Julius Riamei learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and 2 (State of Mizoram) drawing attention of this Court to the relief claimed in this petition has submitted that the main relief claimed in this petition is for payment of compensation for the benefit of third parties who are not related to any of the petitioners and that too against the State of Mizoram which is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court of Manipur as such this petition is not maintainable. The reliefs claimed in this petition read as follows:- "In the above stated facts and circumstances, it is prayed that your Lordships be pleased to issue:- i. A writ of mandamus for directing the Respondent No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 to prosecute the personnels of the Operational Team of Mizoram Police who were involved in the killing of deceased Shri Malsawmkima; ii. A writ of mandamus for directing the respondent No. 1 to pay a compensation; (1) an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) to the family of the said deceased namely Shri Malsawmkima; (2) an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakhs only) to Mrs Lalsuongrum w/o Laltuoklien; (3) an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only to Mr. Lalramsang s/o Mr. Lalramhnai; (4) an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to Mr. Lalhlunthang s/o L. Parthang; (5) an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to Mr. Siemsanglur s/o H.P. Duota; (6) an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to Mr. Lalsandam s/o LT. Rawta; (7) an amount of Rs. Lalramsang s/o Mr. Lalramhnai; (4) an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to Mr. Lalhlunthang s/o L. Parthang; (5) an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to Mr. Siemsanglur s/o H.P. Duota; (6) an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to Mr. Lalsandam s/o LT. Rawta; (7) an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to Mr. Lalhmingmawi s/o Sangthang. iii. Pass any other appropriate order or orders deem fit for the ends of justice. In the interim, your Lordships may be pleased to i. Direct the respondents No. 7 & 8 to produce the case record of the incident that took place on 8th May, 2015 at Tieulien Village; ii. Direct the District Judge, Churachandpur to hold an enquiry into the facts and circumstances leading to the death of the deceased namely Shri Malsawmkima s/o H.C. Kapthiang who was actually killed by the Operational Team of Mizoram Police in a fake Encounter on 08.05.2015 at Tieulien Village under Parbung Police Station, Churachandpur District Manipur. 6. In support of his contentions, Mr. Julius Riamei, learned counsel for the Mizoram Government has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India, (1961) 2 SCR 828 : AIR 1961 SC 532 . Referring to the aforesaid judgment, Mr. Julius Riamei submits that if a writ is sought to be issued against a person or an authority, by invoking the Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, such a person or authority should be a resident or located within the territories over which the High Court has jurisdiction. He submits that in the present case, as the relief claimed is mainly against the Mizoram Government, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this petition will not be maintainable. Mr. He submits that in the present case, as the relief claimed is mainly against the Mizoram Government, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this petition will not be maintainable. Mr. Julius Riamei further by invoking the principle of forum conveniens relying on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 254 , submits that even if a small part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, as the substantial cause of action arose within the State of Mizoram, this Court, ought to refuse to entertain this petition as the Gauhati High Court under whose jurisdiction the Mizoram Government comes, would be the most appropriate Court to decide the issues raised in this petition. Mr. Julius Riamei has also relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in M/S Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & ors, ILR (2011) VI Delhi 729 which was decided by invoking the same principle of forum conveniens. Learned counsel for the Mizoram State has also drawn attention of this Court to the decision in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee & Anr. v. C.K. Rajan & Ors., (2003) 7 SCC 546 in which the Hon'ble Supreme has dealt with and reiterated the scope of public interest litigation. He submits that PIL has evolved essentially for grant of relief to the poorest of the poor, the deprived, the illiterate, the urban and rural unorganized labour sector, women, children, those handicapped by 'ignorance, indigence and illiteracy' and other downtrodden persons who have either no access to justice or had been denied justice. Guruvayoor (supra) summarized the situations where PIL can be entertained and he submits that no such situation has arisen in the present case which would warrant invoking this PIL jurisdiction and the petitioners have failed to show that the persons for whom the petitioners are seeking relief cannot pursue their claims on their own. He also placed reliance on the decision in R & M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and others, (2005) 3 SCC 91 to bring home the same principle underlying the scope of the PIL. Mr. He also placed reliance on the decision in R & M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and others, (2005) 3 SCC 91 to bring home the same principle underlying the scope of the PIL. Mr. Julius Riamei, Learned Counsel has also submitted that the petitioners have concealed material facts about the involvement of the deceased and others in various illegal activities and as such the present PIL filed by concealing material facts is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Musale v. State of U.P. and others, (1998) SCC 616. Mr. Julius Riamei, learned counsel also submits since the reliefs sought for in the present petition can be also obtained by approaching the competent normal Courts in Mizoram, the present petition is not maintainable, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603 . 7. In response, Mr. Serto T. Kom learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the reliefs claimed in this PIL also contain a prayer for a direction to the authorities of the State of Manipur to prosecute the personnel of the operational team of the Mizoram Police who were involved in the killing of the deceased Malsawmkima, and hence, it cannot be said that this Court has no jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions in this PIL. It has been also contended by Mr. Serto T. Kom that though the relief for grant of compensation has been also made against the Mizoram Government, the main relief claimed in this petition is for prosecution of the police personnel of the Mizoram police for killing the deceased, namely, Malsawmkima and that prosecution can be done only by the State of Manipur as the killing occurred inside the territory of Manipur. Therefore, Mr. Serto T. Kom contends that the principal relief claimed is directed towards the State of Manipur for prosecution for the police personnel, for which this Court has the exclusive jurisdiction and the second relief claim for compensation is merely by way of consequential relief. Mr. Therefore, Mr. Serto T. Kom contends that the principal relief claimed is directed towards the State of Manipur for prosecution for the police personnel, for which this Court has the exclusive jurisdiction and the second relief claim for compensation is merely by way of consequential relief. Mr. Serto T. Kom, learned counsel has also submitted that the family members of the deceased are mortally scared of the Mizoram Police and are also ignorant and poor who do not have the resources to file case against the Mizoram Police in Mizoram as clearly stated in para No. 4 of the petition. Mr Serto T. Kom, learned counsel has also submitted that no effective alternative remedy is available as regards the issues raised in this petition except for filing this PIL. It has been also contended that the FIR has been lodged against the deceased at the dictation of Mizoram Police and even though the incident happened in 2015, there is no progress in the investigation of FIR. It has been also submitted by Mr. Serto T. Kom learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are residents of Churachandpur in Churachandpur District of Manipur and they have no personal interest in this case except for espousing the cause of the Hmar Tribes who have been under threat and prosecuted in the Mizoram and all the victims belong to Hmar tribe staying in Manipur, and have filed this PIL against the illegal activities of Mizoram Police within the territory of Manipur. Accordingly, it has been submitted that this Court has ample jurisdiction to proceed with the PIL. 8. We have also heard Mr. Romenkumar, learned Amicus Curiae in this case. He submits that the laws relied on by learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 and 2 are not at all applicable to the present case as far as objection raised based on territorial jurisdiction is concerned. He submits that it has been now settled in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and others, (1994) 4 SCC 711 that if the cause of action wholly or partly arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, the High Court will have jurisdiction to deal with the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, it has been held in Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India & Anr., (2006) 6 SCC 207 that the High Court would have jurisdiction if the cause of action wholly or partly arises within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction even though the seat of Government or authority or residence of the person against whom the direction, order or writ is sought to be issued is not within the said territory. The same principle was reiterated in Rajendran Chingaravelu v. R.K. Mishra, Additional commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., (2010) 1 SCC 457 as well as in Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 329 . Further relying on the decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Adani Exports Ltd. & Anr., (2002) 1 SCC 567 , Mr. A. Romenkumar submits that the consideration that arose for deciding the question of territorial jurisdiction in the case involving civil cases may not be applicable to cases involving criminal offences. He submits that all the case laws relied on by Mr. Julius Riamei relate to civil disputes. He submits that in the present case, alleged killing of the deceased took place admittedly within the jurisdiction of Manipur and as such this Court will have jurisdiction to entertained this PIL and this PIL cannot be ousted on the ground that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction. 9. As regards the issue of locus standi raised by the learned counsel representing the Mizoram Government, Mr. A. Romenkumar submits that under Section 3 of the Police Act 1888 which is applicable in the State of Manipur as well as in the State of Mizoram, whenever a member of a police force of a State discharges the functions of a police officer in any part of any other State, he shall be deemed to be a member of the police force of that State. Section 3 of the Police Act 1888 reads as follows: "3. Employment of police officers beyond the State to which they belong. Section 3 of the Police Act 1888 reads as follows: "3. Employment of police officers beyond the State to which they belong. Notwithstanding anything in any of the Acts mentioned or referred to in the last foregoing section, but subject to any orders which the Central Government may make in this behalf, a member of the Police Force of any State may discharge the functions of a police officer in any part of any other State and shall, while so discharging such functions, be deemed to be a member of the Police Force of that part, and be vested with the powers, functions and privileges, and be subject to the liabilities, of a police officer belonging to that Police Force." According to Mr. A. Romenkumar, when the personnel of the Mizoram Police were operating in the State of Manipur as in the present case, they shall be deemed to be members of the Manipur Police and accordingly they will be vested with power, functions and privileges and also liabilities of a police belonging to Manipur Police. Therefore, even if the Mizoram Police Personnel involved in the killing of Malsomkima were from a Mizoram Police, they shall be deemed to belong to the Manipur Police for the purpose of this case and hence would be amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. A. Romenkumar further submits that as provided under section 48 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a police officer may for the purpose of arresting without warrant any person whom he is authorized to arrest, pursue such person into any place in India. But while doing so as required under Rule 159-A of the Assam Police Manual, the personnel of the Mizoram Police is required to inform the concerned police station. According to Mr. Romenkumar, if the Mizoram Police wanted to apprehend any person within the territory of Manipur, they ought to have informed the Manipur Police and seek their help for affecting arrest of any person. However same had not been done by the personnel of the Mizoram Police and thus violated the provisions of law. 10. Mr. A. Romenkumar also by referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in People Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. However same had not been done by the personnel of the Mizoram Police and thus violated the provisions of law. 10. Mr. A. Romenkumar also by referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in People Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2014) 10 SCC 635 has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down guidelines and procedures to be followed by the police while conducting investigation or inquiry. The guidelines referred to in the aforesaid decision in PUCL(supra) are reproduced herein below:- "31. In light of the above discussion and having regard to the directions issued by the Bombay High Court, guidelines issued by NHRC, suggestions of the appellant - PUCL, amicus curiae and the affidavits filed by the Union of India, State Governments and the Union Territories, we think it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in the matters of investigating police encounters in the cases of death as the standard procedure for thorough, effective and independent investigation: 31.1. Whenever the police is in receipt of any intelligence or tip-off regarding criminal movements or activities pertaining to the commission of grave criminal offence, it shall be reduced into writing in some form (preferably into case diary) or in some electronic form. Such recording need not reveal details of the suspect or the location to which the party is headed. If such intelligence or tip-off is received by a higher authority, the same may be noted in some form without revealing details of the suspect or the location. 31.2. If pursuant to the tip-off or receipt of any intelligence, as above, encounter takes place and firearm is used by the police party and as a result of that, death occurs, an FIR to that effect shall be registered and the same shall be forwarded to the court under Section 157 of the Code without any delay. While forwarding the report under Section 157 of the Code, the procedure prescribed under Section 158 of the Code shall be followed. 31.3. An independent investigation into the incident/encounter shall be conducted by the CID or police team of another police station under the supervision of a senior officer (at least a level above the head of the police party engaged in the encounter). 31.3. An independent investigation into the incident/encounter shall be conducted by the CID or police team of another police station under the supervision of a senior officer (at least a level above the head of the police party engaged in the encounter). The team conducting inquiry/investigation shall, at a minimum, seek: (a) To identify the victim; colour photographs of the victim should be taken; (b) To recover and preserve evidentiary material, including bloodstained earth, hair, fibers and threads, etc., related to the death; (c) To identify scene witnesses with complete names, addresses and telephone numbers and obtain their statements (including the statements of police personnel involved) concerning the death; (d) To determine the cause, manner, location (including preparation of rough sketch of topography of the scene and, if possible, photo/video of the scene and any physical evidence) and time of death as well as any pattern or practice that may have brought about the death; (e) It must be ensured that intact fingerprints of deceased are sent for chemical analysis. Any other fingerprints should be located, developed, lifted and sent for chemical analysis; (f) Post-mortem must be conducted by two doctors in the District Hospital, one of them, as far as possible, should be Incharge/ Head of the District Hospital. Post-mortem shall be video-graphed and preserved; (g) Any evidence of weapons, such as guns, projectiles, bullets and cartridge cases, should be taken and preserved. Wherever applicable, tests for gunshot residue and trace metal detection should be performed. (h) The cause of death should be found out, whether it was natural death, accidental death, suicide or homicide. 31.4. A Magisterial inquiry under Section 176 of the Code must invariably be held in all cases of death which occur in the course of police firing and a report thereof must be sent to Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction under Section 190 of the Code. 31.5. The involvement of NHRC is not necessary unless there is serious doubt about independent and impartial investigation. However, the information of the incident without any delay must be sent to NHRC or the State Human Rights Commission, as the case may be. 31.6. The injured criminal/victim should be provided medical aid and his/her statement recorded by the Magistrate or Medical Officer with certificate of fitness. 31.7. It should be ensured that there is no delay in sending FIR, diary entries, panchnamas, sketch, etc., to the court concerned. 31.8. 31.6. The injured criminal/victim should be provided medical aid and his/her statement recorded by the Magistrate or Medical Officer with certificate of fitness. 31.7. It should be ensured that there is no delay in sending FIR, diary entries, panchnamas, sketch, etc., to the court concerned. 31.8. After full investigation into the incident, the report should be sent to the competent court under Section 173 of the Code. The trial, pursuant to the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, must be concluded expeditiously. 31.9. In the event of death, the next of kin of the alleged criminal/victim must be informed at the earliest. 31.10. Six monthly statements of all cases where deaths have occurred in police firing must be sent to NHRC by DGPs. It must be ensured that the six monthly statements reach to NHRC by 15th day of January and July, respectively. The statements may be sent in the following format along with post mortem, inquest and, wherever available, the inquiry reports: (i) Date and place of occurrence. (ii) Police Station, District. (iii) Circumstances leading to deaths : (a) Self defence in encounter. (b) In the course of dispersal of unlawful assembly. (c) In the course of affecting arrest. (iv) Brief facts of the incident. (v) Criminal Case No. (vi) Investigating Agency. (vii) Findings of the Magisterial Inquiry/Inquiry by Senior Officers : (a) disclosing, in particular, names and designation of police officials, if found responsible for the death; and (b) whether use of force was justified and action taken was lawful. 31.11. If on the conclusion of investigation the materials/evidence having come on record show that death had occurred by use of firearm amounting to offence under the IPC, disciplinary action against such officer must be promptly initiated and he be placed under suspension. 31.12. As regards compensation to be granted to the dependants of the victim who suffered death in a police encounter, the scheme provided under Section 357-A of the Code must be applied. 31.13. The police officers concerned must surrender his/her weapons for forensic and ballistic analysis, including any other material, as required by the investigating team, subject to the rights under Article 20 of the Constitution. 31.14. An intimation about the incident must also be sent to the police officer's family and should the family need services of a lawyer/counselling, same must be offered. 31.15. 31.14. An intimation about the incident must also be sent to the police officer's family and should the family need services of a lawyer/counselling, same must be offered. 31.15. No out-of-turn promotion or instant gallantry rewards shall be bestowed on the concerned officers soon after the occurrence. It must be ensured at all costs that such rewards are given/recommended only when the gallantry of the concerned officers is established beyond doubt. 31.16. If the family of the victim finds that the above procedure has not been followed or there exists a pattern of abuse or lack of independent investigation or impartiality by any of the functionaries as above mentioned, it may make a complaint to the Sessions Judge having territorial jurisdiction over the place of incident. Upon such complaint being made, the concerned Sessions Judge shall look into the merits of the complaint and address the grievances raised therein. 32. The above guidelines will also be applicable to grievous injury cases in police encounter, as far as possible. 33. Accordingly, we direct that the above requirements / norms must be strictly observed in all cases of death and grievous injury in police encounters by treating them as law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution of India." It has been submitted by Mr. Romenkumar that the Mizoram Police that have not followed aforesaid the procedures laid down. He also submits that there is no evidence to show that the Mizoram Police had surrendered the weapons which were involved in the killing of the said Malsawmkima. 11. Mr. A. Romenkumar further submits that as regards the contention raised by the learned counsel for Mizoram State that the present petitioners have no locus standi to file this PIL, he submits that this is an incident which involves deprivation of the right to life of a person and also there are allegations of torture made against the personnel of the Mizoram Police. The personnel of the Mizoram Police have not only violated the law of the land but also deprived the life of a person. Thus the acts of the Mizoram police have caused public injury and public wrong. The personnel of the Mizoram Police have not only violated the law of the land but also deprived the life of a person. Thus the acts of the Mizoram police have caused public injury and public wrong. He submits that it has been held in Institute of Law, Chandigarh & ors v. Neeraj Sharma & ors: (2015) 1 SCC 720 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of the Constitution. He submits that the aim of the public interest litigation is to redress genuine public wrong or public injury. In the present case the issue raised by the petitioner is of grave nature highlighting a public wrong and public injury caused by the members of the Mizoram Police and as such it cannot be stated that the present PIL is not maintainable. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and learned Amicus Curiae, we are of the opinion that the objection raised by the Mizoram Government and others (Respondents no. 1 to 5) cannot be sustained and we would hold that this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain this PIL for the following reasons. 13. It has neither been denied nor controverted by the Respondents, more particularly, the Respondents no.1 and 2 (State of Mizoram) that the incident happened on 8.5.2015 in Tieulian Village, which is located within Churachandpur District in the State of Manipur in which one Malsawmkima had died under conflicting circumstances. According to the petitioners, the Mizoram Police personnel surrounded Tieulien Village in the early morning of 5.8.2015 and searched for Malsamkima in the village who was caught by the Mizoram Police from the house of one Mr. Emmanuel Zarzasong and taken near the Barak river near the village and soon thereafter, the villagers heard gun shots. Some villagers were also allegedly assaulted by the Mizoram Police while searching for the said Malsawmkima. Later, the villagers saw a pool of blood near the river bank. It was also alleged that there was no encounter or exchange of fire on the said day. 14. The Respondents no. 1 and 2 narrated a different version as contained in their affidavit in opposition filed on 4.7.2017. It is stated in paragraph no. 10 thereof as follows: "10. It was also alleged that there was no encounter or exchange of fire on the said day. 14. The Respondents no. 1 and 2 narrated a different version as contained in their affidavit in opposition filed on 4.7.2017. It is stated in paragraph no. 10 thereof as follows: "10. It is further submitted. It is further submitted that according to Police Intelligence reports, late in the night of 7th May, 2015, the Operational Party who were patrolling the area of Mizoram bordering Manipur received specific information that the main persons accused in the above said ambush, who were accused persons in FIR No. 06/2015 Dt. 29.03.2015 u/s 302/307/396/397/120 (B)/326 IPC r/w 25 (1A)/27(B) Arms Act of Sakawrdai Police Station, were hiding in Tieulian Village, Manipur just across the border. Attempts were made to inform Manipur Police and Assam Rifles but since network on mobiles phones were not zero and there was no wireless connectivity, it was not possible to inform Manipur Police, Assam Rifles or even the Police Headquarters of Mizoram at that moment. The information was very specific and the accused person would have slipped away, therefore, operational team decided to verify the information and approached Tieulian village, early in the morning of 8th May, 2015 at the break of dawn. A few persons, on seeing the approaching Police Party started running away and were asked to stop. Instead of stopping, these persons started an unprovoked firing on the Police Party who had no option but to fire in self-defence. It is reported that one of the attackers was hit by the defensive fire of the Police Party while the others managed to escape. The attacker who succumbed to his injuries was identified as deserter named H.C. Malsawmkima of Mizoram Police who had deserted long with 2 (two) sophisticated weapons and ammunitions of Mizoram Police and joined the militant group HPC (D). The deceased was also identified as one of the main accused in the above stated ambush on 28.3.2015. 1 (one) service .38 revolver bearing registration No. 161-33827 with 3 (three) live rounds and 3 (three) empty cartridges were also recovered from the dead body of H.C. Malsawmkima. This .38 revolver, incidentally, was the .38 which was snatched away from the late D/G servant-III Lalchuailova (Police driver) who was killed during the above mentioned ambush on 28.3.2015 launched by the HPC (D) elements. This .38 revolver, incidentally, was the .38 which was snatched away from the late D/G servant-III Lalchuailova (Police driver) who was killed during the above mentioned ambush on 28.3.2015 launched by the HPC (D) elements. With all due respects to the dead body, the Police team carried the dead body of H.C. Malsawmkima for observing Police formalities and to hand over to the family at Sakawrdai." 15. It has been also stated in paragraph no. 17 of the affidavit in opposition of the Respondents no.1 and 2 as follows: "17. That in Reply to Para No. 5 B of the Petition it is submitted that the incident leading to the encounter between Mizoram Police and HPC (D) militants near Tieulien Village originated during patrolling by Mizoram Police along the Mizoram-Manipur border, where the patrolling party received specific information that members of the HPC (D) terrorist group who had previously carried out ambush on Mizoram were holding at Tieulien Village and accordingly approached the village and the aforementioned exchange of fire between Mizoram Police and HPC (D) cadres took place, wherein H.C. Malsawmkima (L) succumbed to retaliatory fire from Police Party. The Mizoram Police parties were suddenly fired upon when they reached the village, and had no time to enter each and every house as alleged in the petition. Since the Police party was fired upon, they had no time to interact with the villagers, hence the question of physically assaulting villagers does not arise, they had to defend themselves and retaliate against gun fire from the insurgents, hence it would be unrealistic to presume that they would have time to torture civilians during the encounter. The Police party was sent from Mizoram and hence had no knowledge of whether WLL phones are present in the village or not, hence destroying something they didn't know existed does not arise." 16. From the above, it is clearly evident that the Respondents No. 1 and 2 themselves admitted that the Mizoram Police entered Tieulian village in the State of Manipur looking for Malsawmkimi and others who were stated to be involved in ambushing members of the Mizoram Legislative Assembly Assurance Committee, who were reported to be hiding in Tieulian village. From the above, it is clearly evident that the Respondents No. 1 and 2 themselves admitted that the Mizoram Police entered Tieulian village in the State of Manipur looking for Malsawmkimi and others who were stated to be involved in ambushing members of the Mizoram Legislative Assembly Assurance Committee, who were reported to be hiding in Tieulian village. According to Mizoram Government, when the Mizoram Police personnel approached Tieulian village and confronted them, an exchange of fire took place in which one of them died who was later identified as Malsawmkimi and a large of arms and ammunition's were recovered. The Respondents no. 1 and 2 have also denied that any villager of Tieulian village was tortured by the Mizoram Police personnel. 17. The State of Manipur and others impleaded as Respondents no. 6 to 9 in their version as contained in the affidavit in opposition filed by the Respondents no. 8 and 9 more or less corroborated the version of the Mizoram government as stated in paragraph no. 15 of the affidavit in opposition filed on 26.9.2016 which reads as follows. "15. That, with reference to para No. 5. B. (i), (b), (iv), (a) of the writ petition, as per the statements of villages recorded in FIR No. 03(05)2015 PBG-PS u/s 307/400/34 IPC & 25 (1-A) Arms Act, none of them have mentioned seeing Mr. Malsawmkima (the deceased) being arrested/apprehended by the Mizoram Police. As per the statement of Mr. Emmanuel Zarzosang recorded in FIR No. 03(05)2015 PBG-PS u/s 307/400/34 IPC & 25 (1-A) Arms Act, he stated that he overheard the Mizoram Police shouting that they have arrested the person wanted by them. And at about 6:30 a.m. he heard sounds of gunfire. As per the statements of Mizoram Police personnel available in the case record of FIR No. 03(05)2015 PBG-PS u/s 307/400/34 IPC & 25 (1-A) Arms Acts, Mr. Malsawmkima (the deceased) along with some other persons were running away from Mizoram Police and that one of them fired at Mizoram Police while they were being chased and commanded to stop. And as such, the Mizoram Police retaliated the fire at them in which one succumbed to the bullets of Mizoram Police and was later on identified as Mr. Malsawmkima." 18. And as such, the Mizoram Police retaliated the fire at them in which one succumbed to the bullets of Mizoram Police and was later on identified as Mr. Malsawmkima." 18. From the above, it is clear that the deceased Malsawmkima died on 8.5.2015 near Tieulian village in Churachandpur District within the State of Manipur, though the circumstances under which he died are in dispute. Even if the said Malsawmkima was a deserter from Mizoram Police and was involved in many illegal activities inside the State of Mizoram as alleged by the State of Mizoram, the fact remains that he died within the territory of the State of Manipur. He was killed by the Mizoram Police personnel after being apprehended in Tieulian village as alleged by the petitioners but in an encounter as asserted by the Mizoram Police. Nonetheless, the place of occurrence of the disputed death is within the territory of the State of Manipur. Naturally, a part of the cause of action arose within the State of Manipur of which this Court has jurisdiction. Therefore, since a part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court, we have no hesitation to hold that this PIL cannot be unsuited on this ground. 19. Law relating to territorial jurisdiction is well settled as has been referred to extensively by Mr. A. Romenkumar, the learned Amicus Curiae, with which we have no reason to differ from. The decision rendered in Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh (supra) is no more a good law as far as issue relating to territorial jurisdiction is concerned after the amendment of Article 226. In Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 7 SCC 640 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "22. So far as the question of territorial jurisdiction with reference to a criminal offence is concerned the main factor to be considered is the place where the alleged offence was committed." We do not wish to burden this judgment with case laws on an issue which is already well settled that the jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked if the cause of action wholly or partly arises within the territory in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction. 20. Mr. 20. Mr. Julius Riamei, learned Counsel for the State of Mizoram has urged this Court to invoke the doctrine of forum conveniens and to direct the petitioners to approach the Gauhati High Court or any other Court having territorial jurisdiction over the State of Mizoram. He submits that the deceased Malsawmkima was a wanted police personnel belonging to Mizoram Police and a resident of Mizoram. He was involved in a number of cases including the ambush carried out in Mizoram on the members of the Mizoram Legislative Assembly Assurance Committee regarding which an FIR had been lodged in Mizoram. In other words, the deceased is a deserter and fugitive from Mizoram who was wanted for several criminal activities in Mizoram and, in fact, he had escaped to Manipur to avoid the criminal action by the State of Mizoram and since the allegations are directed against the State of Mizoram and its police personnel, it would be in the fitness of things that the petitioners move this petition/PIL before the Gauhati High Court which has territorial jurisdiction over the State of Mizoram as it would be the more appropriate forum. 21. The doctrine of forum conveniens has been evolved to ensure fair trial where more than one Court has jurisdiction to try any dispute. The interest of justice to ensure fiar trial is the paramount consideration for invoking this doctrine. In DAV Boys Senior Secondary School v. DAV College Managing Committee, (2010) 8 SCC 401 the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoting from Subramaniam Swamy (Dr.) v. Ramakrishna Hegde (1990) 1 SCC 4 , dealing with power of the Supreme Court to transfer a case under Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code observed that, "8. Under the old section the State Government was empowered to transfer a suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in the High Court of that State to any other High Court on receipt of a report from the Judge trying or hearing the suit that there existed reasonable grounds for such transfer provided that the State Government of the State in which the other High Court had its principal seat consented to the transfer. The present Section 25 confers the power of transfer on the Supreme Court and is of wider amplitude. The present Section 25 confers the power of transfer on the Supreme Court and is of wider amplitude. Under the present provision the Supreme Court is empowered at any stage to transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding from a High Court or other civil court in one State to a High Court or other civil court of another State if it is satisfied that such an order is expedient for the ends of justice. The cardinal principle for the exercise of power under this section is that the ends of justice demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. The question of expediency would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but the paramount consideration for the exercise of power must be to meet the ends of justice. It is true that if more than one court has jurisdiction under the Code to try the suit, the plaintiff as dominus litis has a right to choose the court and the defendant cannot demand that the suit be tried in any particular court convenient to him. The mere convenience of the parties or any one of them may not be enough for the exercise of power but it must also be shown that trial in the chosen forum will result in denial of justice. Cases are not unknown where a party seeking justice chooses a forum most inconvenient to the adversary with a view to depriving that party of a fair trial. Parliament has, therefore, invested this Court with the discretion to transfer the case from one court to another if that is considered expedient to meet the ends of justice. Words of wide amplitude-for the ends of justice have been advisedly used to leave the matter to the discretion of the Apex Court as it is not possible to conceive of all situations requiring or justifying the exercise of power. But the paramount consideration must be to see that justice according to law is done; if for achieving that objective the transfer of the case is imperative, there should be no hesitation to transfer the case even if it is likely to cause some inconvenience to the plaintiff. The petitioner's plea for the transfer of the case must be tested on this touchstone." Thus what is of paramount interest for invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens is to ensure fair trail. 22. The petitioner's plea for the transfer of the case must be tested on this touchstone." Thus what is of paramount interest for invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens is to ensure fair trail. 22. In the present case, the incident in which said Malsawmkima died occurred near Tieulian village within Churachandpur District in the State of Manipur. May be that he was an employee of the Mizoram Government, a fugitive and a resident of Mizoram and may have committed crimes in Mizoram, but the immediate circumstances under which he died occurred near the said Tieulian village in Churachandpur District located in the State of Manipur. According to the petitioners there were many villagers who had witnessed the said Malsawmkima being apprehended and taken away by the Mizoram Police personnel, though this allegation is denied by the Mizoram Police and is yet to be established. But the Mizoram Police do not deny that the said Malsawmkima died in a retaliatory firing within the territory of Manipur. Therefore, the immediate and proximate cause of action arose wholly or substantially within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. If the allegations of the petitioners are to be proved, it is the residents of the said village who would be the prime witnesses and not anyone from Mizoram, except the Mizoram Police personnel, who are the accused according to the petitioners. The assertion of the Mizoram Police that the said Malsawmkima was involved in many criminal activities in Mizoram are not directly relevant to decide the cause of action relating to the said incident of 8th May, 2015. It is also not the case of the Mizoram Police that the said Malsawmkima committed certain crimes within the territory of Mizoram and he immediately escaped to Manipur and the Mizoram Police was in hot pursuit of him and he was killed in the encounter while he was being chased. The said Malsawmkima allegedly deserted Mizoram Police on 11.7.2014 and the alleged ambush by the Malsawmkima and his companions was carried out in Mizoram on 28.3.2015. The said Malsawmkima was killed on 8.5.2015, after 2 (two) months of the aforesaid ambush. The said Malsawmkima was later tracked down by the Mizoram Police in Tieulian village in Manipur after getting intelligence inputs and not by way of hot pursuit where he was located in the said village and was killed in the alleged encounter. The said Malsawmkima was killed on 8.5.2015, after 2 (two) months of the aforesaid ambush. The said Malsawmkima was later tracked down by the Mizoram Police in Tieulian village in Manipur after getting intelligence inputs and not by way of hot pursuit where he was located in the said village and was killed in the alleged encounter. Therefore, the incident of 8.5.2015 which happened in Manipur where the said Malsawmkima died and earlier incidents in Mizoram where the said Malsawmkima was involved do not constitute the same transaction, so as to claim that part of the cause of action arose in Mizoram. The Mizoram Government has failed to show in what manner any part or fraction of the cause action arose in Mizoram relating to the incident of 8.5.2015 in/near Tieulian vuillage in which the said Malsawmkima was killed in the alleged encounter. Though the incident in Manipur on 8.5.2015 in which the said Malsawmkima died may be a fallout of the earlier criminal activities by Malsawmkima in Mizoram, yet these are distinct and different incidents and not connected with any chain of connecting events. In such a situation, merely because the Mizoram Police personnel, and hence the Mizoram Government, are ordinarily amenable to the jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court will not confer any right to them to seek transfer of the petition to the Gauhati High Court as no cause of action arose at all within the territorial jurisdiction of Gauhati High Court as far as the incident of 8.5.2015 is concerned where the said Malsawmkima was killed. In view of the above, the question of invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens does not arise. 23. Having held that this Court and not the Gauhati High Court has the jurisdiction to deal with this issue raised in this petition, the next question which arises for consideration is whether the present two petitioners have locus standi to file this petition? According to the State of Mizoram, the present two petitioners are mere busybodies and have no locus standi to file the present petition as they themselves are not directly affected by the alleged incident which occurred on 08.05.2015. Moreover, the petition has been filed seeking the monetary benefit for third parties and not for themselves. According to the State of Mizoram, the present two petitioners are mere busybodies and have no locus standi to file the present petition as they themselves are not directly affected by the alleged incident which occurred on 08.05.2015. Moreover, the petition has been filed seeking the monetary benefit for third parties and not for themselves. As regards this issue, it is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners are socially spirited persons belonging to Hmar tribe to which the deceased and other victims belong. It has been contended that the petitioners are not mere busybodies but are involved in various social activities and also associated in various public organizations and associations belonging to Hmar community. It has been also their contention that the victims, both the deceased and other villagers who were tortured by the Mizoram Police belong to Hmar tribes and are poor villagers. It has been contended that the families of the deceased Malsawmkima being resident of Mizoram do not have the means to pursue this case in Mizoram and are also too frightened to file any petition against the Mizoram Police in Mizoram as such, the petitioners have taken up the cause of the family of the deceased. 24. True, ordinarily it is only the person who is affected has the right to move the Court for redressal of his grievance. However, this locus of an aggrieved person to move the Court has been expanded with the development of Public Interest Litigation, specially in the case of those persons who, are in a disadvantaged position and are not able to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court on their own in which cases the Court liberalized and enlarged the scope of locus standi to allow other third party to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court on their behalf. 25. What this Court has observed is that the fact remains that the incident occurred on 08.05.2015 in a village in Churachandpur District within the State of Manipur where a person was killed which according to the petitioners was a cold blooded murder but which has been explained by the Mizoram police as a death occurring in a retaliatory fire in an encounter. The circumstances in which the said Malsawmkima died is a subject matter which this Court is yet to examine. The circumstances in which the said Malsawmkima died is a subject matter which this Court is yet to examine. It is on record that incident occurred in a very remote hill area of Manipur which is also not easily accessible and which fact is not denied by the State of Mizoram. The allegation is not only against the killing of the said Malsawmkima but also the alleged torture of some villagers. The petitioners claim that they are public spirited persons who are involved in various organizations and associations and had taken up various social issues and they have been espousing the cause of the poor tribal villagers. The petitioners also belong to the same tribal community of Hmar to which the victims belong. Therefore, considering the fact that there is a serious allegation of deprivation of right to life of a tribal, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution without following the due process of law, it can be certainly said that this petition involves adjudication involving public injury by an organ of the State affecting members of a tribal community who are located in a remote area of the State. The legal principle applied in Institute of Law, Chandigarh (supra) will be applicable in the present case also. In Union of India v. J.D. Suryavanshi, (2011) 13 SCC 167 , it has been held that judicial interference by way of Public Interest Litigation is available if there is injury to public or dereliction of constitutional or statutory obligations by State. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while issuing directions relating to Public Interest Litigation in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402 held that while entertaining PIL it should be ensured that PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. If the allegations of the petitioners have some element of truth, certainly, it can be said that this PIL raises issues of genuine public harm or public injury. This Court is not inclined to hold that the present petitioners have no locus standi to file this PIL in espousing the cause of the tribals who are located in a remote and inaccessible area of the State of Manipur and highlighting the questionable actions of the Mizoram Police within the territory of Manipur. The issues also involve violation of fundamental rights of the victims who are all tribals. The issues also involve violation of fundamental rights of the victims who are all tribals. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to accept the plea of the Mizoram Government that the petitioners are mere busybodies and have no locus standi to file this petition, who are espousing the cause of the poor tribals inhabiting in a remote area of Manipur. 26. As regards the contention of Mr. Julius Riamei, learned counsel for the State of Mizoram that criminal process had been already initiated and now pending in both Mizoram and Manipur, and as such, the present petition would not lie, it may be noted that the present PIL has been filed seeking constitutional remedy under Public law for violation of fundamental rights, which remedy has long been established since the time of Khatri (II) v. State of Bihar, (1981) 1 SCC 627 , Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar, 1983 Cr.L.J. 1644, Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 , et.al. The criminal proceedings relating to the said incident and the constitutional law remedy invoked through this PIL are two independent legal remedies available under law. Accordingly, this Court does not find merit in the said submission of the learned counsel for the State of Mizoram. As regards the allegation that the petitioners have not come with clean hands as the petitioners have not disclosed the criminal activities of the deceased Malsawmkima, it may be also noted that such criminal background may not have much relevance as regards invoking the public law remedy in this PIL is concerned, as even a proven criminal has a fundamental right to live as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which cannot be deprived without following the due process of law. As regards the submissions that alternative remedy are available, it may be stated that Article 226 of the Constitution provides for an efficacious constitutional remedy for violation of fundamental rights which cannot be ordinarily denied to those who invoke this jurisdiction. This Court does not find any compelling reason to debar the petitioners from filing this PIL by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution for the reasons discussed above. 27. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the present petition filed by the two petitioners is maintainable. The other issues highlighted by Mr. This Court does not find any compelling reason to debar the petitioners from filing this PIL by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution for the reasons discussed above. 27. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the present petition filed by the two petitioners is maintainable. The other issues highlighted by Mr. A. Romenkumar Singh, Learned Amicus Curiae may be considered at an appropriate stage. List accordingly on 06.12.2017 for further proceeding.