Telangana High Court
Tatipamula Had Prasad, vs The State Of Telangana, Rep By Its ... on 5 March, 2025
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.14087 OF 2015
ORDER:
(ORAL)
This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of
respondent Nos.1 to 6, in not providing free medical treatment and not
paying compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner in the
spirit of judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Laxmi v. Union
of India 1 for pouring acid on the face of the petitioner by respondent
No.8 with an intention to kill him, as illegal and violative of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, and consequently, to direct respondent No.8
to forthwith pay an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the petitioner for his
past and future medical treatment.
2. Heard Mr. Pulla Rao Yellani, learned counsel for the petitioner,
and Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for Home, and perused the material available on record.
3. It is submitted that the instant writ petition is filed claiming
compensation against respondent No.8, who is accused and convicted
in C.C.No.304 of 2012 on the file of II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of
First Class at Kothagudem, by judgment dated 01.04.2015.
(2014) 4 SCC 427
4. It is submitted that the accused/respondent No.8 poured acid
on the face of the petitioner with an intention to kill him and it resulted
in disfigurement of the face of the petitioner. The eye sight and right
ear of the petitioner were also impaired. The judgment in Laxmi's case
(supra 1) deals with grant of compensation by the State Government to
the victims of acid attack. The Member Secretary of the State Legal
Services Authority in all the States were directed to take up the issue
with the State Government so that the orders passed by the
Honourable Supreme Court are complied with and minimum
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- is paid to the victims of acid attack.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid to the petitioner by the State
Government and this writ petition is filed claiming compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/- from accused/respondent No.8. However, learned
counsel has not pointed out any directions of the Honourable Supreme
Court awarding compensation as against the accused person.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home takes
preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition.
7. In the opinion of this Court, in case the petitioner is claiming
compensation from the accused/respondent No.8, appropriate remedy
for him is to approach the civil court, but not by way of writ petition. As
admittedly compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid to the petitioner by
the State Government as per the judgment of the Honourable
Supreme Court in Laxmi's case referred supra, the writ remedy cannot
be invoked against respondent No.8, who is a private individual.
However, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the competent
civil court seeking compensation against the accused/respondent No.8
for injuries caused to him due to acid attack.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to
costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in
the writ petition stand closed.
____________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
05.03.2025
vv
