The Allahabad High Court has in the case of Shiv Kumar Verma and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others, held that the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual and satisfies him personally but it also helps in curing social evil. The Court directed the State Government to strictly implement its policy of granting compensation to a citizen (25k), who has been illegally detained.
The Division Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Shamim Ahmed also appreciated the State Government for coming up with a policy decision to pay compensation of Rs 25,000/- for illegal detention of any citizen by any Officer of the State Government and initiation of disciplinary proceedings against such officer.
The Court was dealing with the illegal detention of 2 persons who continued to be under detention despite submitting personal bond and other papers as directed under the pretext of verification and thus they challenged their illegal detention before the Court.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Court reiterated the findings of the Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243 (Paras 8, 10, 11 and 12)- which was as follows,
“under our Constitution Sovereignty vest in the people. Every limb of the constitutional machinery is obliged to be people oriented. No functionary in exercise of statutory power can claim immunity, except to the extent protected by the statute itself. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behaviour before authorities created under the statute like the commission or the courts entrusted with responsibility of maintaining the rule of law.”
It was opined by the Court,
“An ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities. The servants of the government are also the servants of the people and the use of their power must always be subordinate to their duty of service. A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. He who is responsible for it must suffer it. But when it arises due to arbitrary or capricious behaviour then it loses its individual character and assumes social significance. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore, the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil.”
The Court further observed that,
“In a modern society no authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. It is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention linger on and the man in the street is made to run from one end to other with no result. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated which erodes the credibility in the system. Where it is found that exercise of discretion was mala fide and the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental and physical harassment then the officer can no more claim to be under protective cover. The test of permissive form of grant is over. It is now imperative and implicit in the exercise of power that it should be for the sake of society.
(...)
Once it is found by the competent authority that a complainant is entitled for compensation for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law, then payment of the amount may be made to the complainant from the public fund immediately but it may be recovered from those who are found responsible for such unparadonable behaviour. This legal position is reflected from the law laid down by the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority's case (supra). In the said case it was further observed by the Apex Court that the Administrative law of accountability of public authorities or their arbitrary and even ultra vires actions has taken many strides and it is now accepted both by this Court and English Courts that State is liable to compensate for loss or injury suffered by a citizen due to arbitrary action of its employees.”
The Court recorded its appreciation for the State Government to take the afore-quoted policy decision dated 23.03.2021 for payment of compensation of Rs.25,000/- for illegal detention of any citizen by any Officer of the State Government and initiation of disciplinary proceedings against such officer.
“Since the State Government itself has taken a policy decision and has paid compensation to the petitioners herein, therefore, no further direction for payment of compensation is required to be issued in the present writ petition.”
The Court disposed of the present case with the following directions,
“(i) The State Government shall ensure that the provisions of the Cr.P.C. as referred in the policy decision dated 23.03.2021 are strictly followed/observed by all the concerned officers.
(ii) The State Government shall further ensure that paragraph 12 of the policy decision dated 23.03.2021 is strictly implemented.
(iii) The State Government shall publish Para 12 of its Policy decision dated 23.03.2021 in all largely circulated National Level Newspaper having circulation in the State of Uttar Pradesh and shall also display it on display board at prominent places within public view, in all blocks, Tehsil Headquarters, Police Stations and in campus of District Collectorate in the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
(iv) Copy of this order shall be sent by the State Government to all District level and Tehsil level Bar Associations in the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh.”
Case Details
Name: Shiv Kumar Verma and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. – 16386 of 2020
Bench: Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Shamim Ahmed
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
