Letters Patent Appeal No. 1107 of 2012 · Patna High Court · 2011
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1107 of 2012 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9066 of 2009 With Interlocutory Application No.4845 of 2012 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1107 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Patna 5. The Additional Collector, Disaster Management Section, Government of Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondents-Appellants Versus 1. Gurbaksh Singh Saluja, S/o Late Mehar Singh, R/o Machuatoli, Bari Path, P.S.- Pirbahore, District – Patna. 2. The Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, ……. … Petitioner-Respondent New Delhi. ====================================================== .... .... Respondent 2nd Set. Appearance :
Legal Reasoning
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajiv Roy, G.P.5 Mr. Suresh Kumar, A.C. to G.P.-5 For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Amit Shrivastava, C.G.C. For the Respondent writ petitioner: Mr. Y.S. Arora, Adocate Mr. M. Kumar, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Pratap Aggrawal, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and 2 Patna High Court LPA No.1107 of 2012 (10) dt.17-09-2013 2 / 5 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 10 17-09-2013 This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letter Patent is preferred by the respondent State of Bihar against the judgment and order dated 8th December 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 9066 of 2009. As we considered the presence of the Union Government necessary for deciding the matter at issue, the Union Government has been impleaded as party respondent under order dated 24th June 2013. The Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs has been served. Learned Advocate Mr. Amit Shrivastava has appeared on behalf of the Union of India. The respondent-writ petitioner is the person who has suffered damage to the property in the riots that ensued the assassination of the then Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi in 1984. By way of instant relief, the Government of Bihar had made an ex-gratia payment of Rs.8,000.00 to the writ petitioner in December 1984. Since then, under some Government Circular issued in 1992, the District Magistrate, Patna, under her order dated 9th July 1998, appears to have assessed the damages to the
Decision
property suffered by the writ petitioner at Rs.50,000.00. However, the additional amount of Rs.42,000.00 was not paid or has not been paid to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner does not appear to have pursued the matter further until the Government of India issued a Circular on 16th January 2006 to grant further relief by payment of 10 times the amount of ex-gratia payment made by the State Governments minus the amount actually paid. Pursuant to the said Circular dated 16th January 2006, under order dated 5th 3 Patna High Court LPA No.1107 of 2012 (10) dt.17-09-2013 3 / 5 September 2009 made by the District Magistrate, Patna, the writ petitioner has been allowed payment of Rs.72,000.00 (Rs.80,000-Rs.8,000 already paid). It is this order dated 5th September 2009 and the Circular dated 16th January 2006 which were the subject matter in the present writ petition. According to the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner having been sanctioned the sum of Rs.50,000.00, under Circular dated 16th January 2006, he is the compensation in entitled to receive 10 times the sanctioned amount i.e. Rs.5,00,000.00-Rs.8,000.00, the amount already paid i.e. Rs.4,20,000.00. The claim was contested by the State Government. According to the State Government, the writ petitioner was entitled to receive 10 times the amount already paid and not the amount that was sanctioned in 1997. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has held that the writ petitioner is entitled to 10 times the amount of the damages sanctioned minus the amount already paid i.e. a sum of Rs.4,20,000.00. The writ petitioner also seems to have claimed an additional compensation of Rs. Two lakhs as a displaced person. Which, of course, the learned single Judge has not allowed. The facts are not in dispute that at the relevant time the writ petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.8,000.00 as an ex-gratia payment for the loss to the property suffered by him. It is also not in dispute that the District Magistrate, Patna did in 1997 sanctioned the compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000.00. However, the remaining amount of Rs.42,000.00 has not been paid to the writ petitioner. We may note that the present writ petition is confined to the payment made under the Circular dated 16th 4 Patna High Court LPA No.1107 of 2012 (10) dt.17-09-2013 4 / 5 January 2006 of the Government of India. The relevant provisions under the said Circular have been reproduced by the learned single Judge. We, therefore, do not think it necessary to reproduce the same in the present order. Suffice that the said Circular specifically provides, “Ex-gratia for damaged residential properties would be paid @ 10 times the amount originally paid after deducting the amount already paid” and “Ex-gratia for damaged uninsured commercial/industrial properties would be paid @ 10 times the amount minus the amount already paid”. It is the aforesaid clause for commercial property which is relevant for the purpose of the writ petition. According to the writ petitioner, the phrase “the amount” referred to in the aforesaid clause is the amount sanctioned. Whereas, according to the State Government and the Government of India the phrase “the amount” refers to the ex- gratia amount actually paid. The several clauses in the said Circular dated 16th January 2006, which provide for payment of additional ex-gratia „amount‟ refer to “amount already paid”. It is apparent that what is intended by the Government of India is to enhance/increase the ex-gratia payment for loss to the person and property suffered by the citizens by 10 times the amount already paid. The term “ex- gratia” itself will connote the amount paid by way of grace and not under a legal obligation. The amount sanctioned after the assessment of actual damages cannot be said to be “ex-gratia” amount. In our opinion, therefore, the reference in the Government Circular dated 16th January 2006 is with respect to the “ex-gratia” amount and not to the sanctioned amount. Any other interpretation would be out of place. As the writ petitioner had then been paid an 5 Patna High Court LPA No.1107 of 2012 (10) dt.17-09-2013 5 / 5 ex-gratia amount of Rs.8,000.00, he would now be entitled to 10 times the said amount i.e. Rs.80,000.00 less Rs.8,000.00 already paid. The order dated 5th September 2009 made by the District Magistrate, Patna is, thus, in consonance with the Circular dated 16th January 2006. The additional claim made by the writ petitioner does not emanate from the said Circular dated 16th January 2006. The learned single Judge has erred in construing the said Circular and in directing the payment of 10 times the amount sanctioned in 1997. For the aforesaid reasons, this Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 8th December 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 9066 of 2009 is set aside. C.W.J.C. No. 9066 of 2009 is rejected. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Pawan/-