PURNIMA DEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners above named, claiming compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- (rupees twenty-five lakhs) under the public law remedy for violation of fundamental rights and for committing rape on the victim i.e. petitioner No. 1 by respondent No. 6, Shri H.S. Tewari, the then Principal, Jawahar Novodaya Vidyalaya, Kakraban, South Tripura District, when she was residing in the boarding school, run by the Novodaya Vidyalaya Samity, a Government of India undertaking. The petitioners have also prayed for initiating appropriate action against the respondents in terms of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. The petitioner No. 2, namely, the Tripura Commission for Women, which has been created in terms of the provisions of Section 11(1) of the Tripura Commission for Women Act, 1993 (in short, the Act). The Commission, being empowered to take up cases of violation of the constitutional and other rights relating to women in the State with the appropriate authority, in terms of the provisions of Section 11(1)(C) of the Act and Section 2(C) of the aforesaid Act, which also includes adolescent girls or female child. The victim, petitioner No. 1, is presently in the custody of the Tripura Commission for Women in pursuance of the order dated 16.02.1999, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur.

(2.) I have heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. Nandi, learned counsel, representing the respondents-Union of India as well as Mr. B. Dutta, learned State counsel for the respondent-State.

(3.) The facts, leading to the filing of this writ petition, may be stated, in brief, as follows :