COMMANDANT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All petitions have been filed with a prayer to quash and set aside the order/award passed by the Deputy Collector, Kuttch-Bhuj awarding amount of compensation to the heirs of the deceased in the petitions with all consequential and incidental orders and relief.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner conducted an artillery firing practice near Khavda, border of Bhuj on 27.06.2002. As per respondents, due to this firing, some of the misplaced bullet in oval shape have been exploded due to which, four persons died and four persons were injured. The respondents complained about the said incident to Deputy Collector of Bhuj who called upon inquiry to prove/reply the allegation made by respondent(s). Thereafter, looking to the facts and considering the reply of present petitioner, the Deputy Collector ordered to pay the amount of compensation within stipulated period of three months failing, which the petitioner will be liable to pay 12% interest. Though the petitioner-Headquarter has no connection with the explosion occurred on 28.06.2002, the Deputy Collector passed the order awarding the compensation to the heirs of the deceased. Hence, these petitions.

(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that according to the Police Authorities at Bhuj, the Headquarter has been given to understand that fragments of exploded object and associated materials have been sent for forensic examination. Results of this examination will indicate the type and possible origin of the explosive material which may also well be on act of sabotage. He further submitted that Field Firing at Khavda Range by the officer in-charge of conducting Field Firing on 27.06.2002 ensured that no blind occurred and that the firing areas and entire area within the boundaries of Field Firing Range, Khavda were free from any unused firing substance. The Headquarter and units under its jurisdiction cannot be held responsible for deaths/injury to civilians caused by unidentified explosive in an area outside the boundaries of Field Firing Range, Khavda and, therefore, the proceedings under Section 5 of the Manoeuvres Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act, 1938 to claim compensation from the Army are not applicable in these cases. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the abovementioned contentions were not considered by the authority and the liability of the respondents is wrongly saddled without any justification.