Jharkhand High Court
Sephali Mahata vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 433 of 2018
------
Sephali Mahata ...Petitioner(s).
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Senior Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur, P.S. Jamshedpur, East
Singhbhum, Jharkhand
3. The Officer-in-Charge, Golmuri Police Station, P.S. Golmuri, Jamshedpur,
Jharkhand
4. The Officer-in-Charge, Sonari Police Station, P.S. Sonari, Jamshedpur
5. The Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Government of Goa
6. The Officer-in-Charge, Anjuna Police Station, Goa ... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
Through: Video Conferencing
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhilesh Shrivastava, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Aditya Raman, A.C. to G.A. III
07/24.02.2021: On basis of observation given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Special leave petition (Cri.) No. 2400 of 2012, Sephali Mahto versus State of
Jharkhand and Ors. the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble High Court by
making the following prayer. It is quoted herein below-
1. For the issuance of appropriate writ or a writ in the nature
of mandamus to the respondent no. 1 for compensating the
petitioner with Rs. 100,00,000/- (Hundred Lacs Only) and a
Government job to one of the petitioner's child, for the extra
judicial killing of her husband by Respondent No. 3 & 4 in
connivance with Respondent Nos. 2, 5 & 6 respectively and
also for violation of fundamental right of the deceased
Dilleshwar Mahato in view of direction of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court;
2. For the issuance of appropriate writ or a writ in the nature
of mandamus to the Respondent No. 1 for instituting
departmental inquiry into the said extra judicial killing by its
officers in connivance with police officials of Anjuna Police
Station, P.O. & P.S. Panaji, Goa;
Thus from the prayer made in the criminal writ petition, it is clear that the
petitioner is claiming compensation. The said claim has been made on the basis
of observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned above. It is
necessary to quote the aforesaid observation made in S.L.P. i.e. Special Leave
Petition (Cri.) No. 2400 of 2012. The said special leave petition was dismissed on
02.05.2014 and the relevant order reads as follows.
"The special leave petition is dismissed. However, liberty
is given to the petitioner to take recourse to any other remedy seeking
compensation in accordance with law."
On the basis of the aforesaid observation the petitioner has claimed
compensation by filing this application. Counsel for the petitioner by referring to
the Judgment of Smt. Nilabati Behera @ Lalit Behera Vrs. State of Orissa and
Others reported in (1993) 2 SCC 746 submits that compensation should be
granted to this petitioner.
To determine compensation a process of enquiry has to be carried out. An
enquiry has to be made as to whether and how much loss the person has suffered
and what will be the appropriate quantum of compensation. It has also to be seen
that who has to compensate. These are question of facts, which cannot be gone
into in a writ application, under article 226 of the constitution. Evidence has to be
recorded as disputed facts are involved.
Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Rajender Singh
pathania v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2011) 13 SCC 329 has held-
20. "The issue of award of compensation in case of violation of
fundamental rights of a person has been considered by this Court time
and again and it has consistently been held that though the High
Courts and this Court in exercise of their jurisdictions under Article 226
and 32 can award compensation for such violations but such a power
should not be lightly exercised. These articles cannot be used as a
substitute for the enforcement of rights and obligations which could be
enforced efficaciously through the ordinary process of courts. Before
awarding any compensation there must be a proper enquiry on the
question of facts alleged in the complaint. The Court may examine the
report and determined the issue after giving opportunity of filing
objections to rebut the same and hearing to the other side. Awarding
of compensation is permissible in case the Court reaches the same
conclusion on a reappreciation of the evidence adduced at the enquiry.
Award of monetary compensation in such an eventuality is permissible.
"when that is the only practicable mode of redress available for the
contravention made by the State or its servants in the purported
exercise or their powers."
Thus, this Court feels that by filing a writ petition to claim compensation in
this case is not a proper remedy.
Further Hon'ble Supreme Court, nowhere suggest that the petitioner should
approach Hon'ble High Court for seeking compensation.
Considering the aforesaid fact, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
This application is dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Rajnish/C.P. 3
