complainant is entitled for compensation for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties
Join AntiCorruption Team to make the world better
Join AntiCorrutption Team
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16386 of 2020
Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Verma and Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. and 3 Others
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
(Per: Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.)
18. In the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs.
M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243 (Paras 8, 10, 11 and 12 Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that 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.
19. 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
20
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.
20. 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. It is the tax payers' money which
is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge
their duties in accordance with law.
21. 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
21
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.
22. The legal principles as enumerated in foregoing paragraphs
Nos. 18, 19, 20 & 21 also finds support of the law laid down by
Hon'ble Courts in the case of Lucknow Development Authority
(supra); Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat
(1994) 4 SCC 1; N. Nagendra Rao & Co. Vs. State of A.P.
(1994) 6 SCC 205; State of Maharashtra and others Vs.
Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke and others (1995) 5 SCC 659;
Chief Conservator of Forests and another (1996) 2 SCC 293;
S.P. Goel vs Collector Of Stamps, Delhi (1996) 1 SCC 573;
Common Cause A. Registered Society Vs. Union of India JT
1999 (5) SC 237: AIR 1999 SC 2979; Shiv Sagar Tiwari Vs.
Union of India and others (1996) 6 SCC 558; Chairman,
Railway Board and others Vs. Chandrima Das (Mrs.) and
others (2000) 2 SCC 465; State of A.P. Vs. Challa
Ramkrishna Reddy and others (2000) 5 SCC 712; Research
Foundation for Science (10) Vs. Union of India (2005) 13
SCC 659; M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India and Others (2006)
3 SCC 399; Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar
and others (2008) 9 SCC 527; Action Committee, Unaided
Private Schools and others Vs. Director of Education, Delhi
and others (2009) 10 SCC; Delhi Jal Board Vs. National
Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied
Workers and others (2011) 8 SCC 568; Municipal Corporation
of Delhi, Delhi Vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association and
others (2011) 14 SCC 481