UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUNITA AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a common judgment and order dated 20.6.2002, Writ Petition (Civil) Nos 64 (K) of 2000 and 65 (K) of 2000, were disposed of by the learned Single Judge as the facts and questions of law in both the writ petitions were the same.

(2.) Pursuant to an agreement entered into between the Commandant, 14th Assam Rifles, and M/s Agarwal Brothers, one Sri Maliram Agarwal had been running a Non-CSD canteen at the Head Quarters of the 14th Assam Rifles at Phek in the State of Nagaland. On 7.11.1999 at about 6.15 PM, on the eve of Dipawali, when Maliram's two sons, namely, Kamlesh Kumar Agarwal and Lalit Kumar Agarwal were performing Laxmi Puja in their said canteen, rifleman Dilip Chetia of 14th Assam Rifles appeared at the scene and indiscriminately opened fire from his fire-arm killing both the said sons of Maliram Agarwal and seriously injuring their cousin, Ashok Agarwal. At the time of his death, Kamlesh Kumar Agarwal was 31 years old and he left behind his widow, aged about 24 years, and two minor children, one aged about 21/2 years and the other one 1 years old. Deceased Lalit Kumar Agarwal was 33 years old and he left behind his widow, aged about 27 years, and three children aged about 7 years, 5 years and 3 years respectively. According to the post-mortem report, both the deaths had taken place on account of multiple gun-shot injuries. Maliram Agarwal made a representation dated 8.12.1999, to the Union Defence Ministry praying for payment of Rs.25 lakhs as compensation to each of the families of his said deceased sons. As the representation yielded no result, writ petitions aforementioned were filed by the widows of the said two deceased sons of Maliram Agarwal on the ground, inter alia, that the husbands of the writ petitioners were murdered in a barbaric, brutal and ghastly manner for no fault of their own and due to negligence on the part of the Assam Rifles authorities and other respondents inasmuch as they were shot dead by a personnel from Assam Rifles within the Assam Rifles camp area and that too, while they were performing Puja and, hence, the Assam Rifles authority and other respondents were vicariously responsible for the act of their servant, namely, Rifleman Dilip Chetia, who had killed the said two innocent persons.

(3.) The respondents (who are applicants-appellants herein) resisted the writ petitions contending, inter alia, that the act of the said rifleman was an individual act and the same had not been done in the discharge of his official duty and, hence, the respondents were not vicariously liable for the individual act of their servant.