RATTAN CHAND Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rattan Chand son of Han Chand resident of House No. 247-L, Sector Il-A, Chandigarh, is the unfortunate father of his son Raj Kumar deceased a young boy of 21 years who became the victim of police firing in connection with the Mandal Commission and the aforesaid petitioner has filed the present petition against Chandigarh Administration, the State of Punjab and Deputy Commissioner. Chandigarh respondent Nos. 1 to 3, respectively praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to make the payment of compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/ - to the family of the victim since the deceased Raj Kumar was killed in police firing of 23-10-1990 on the crossing of Sectors 37, 38, 40 and 41, Chandigarh. It has further been prayed for the quashment of Annexure P.8, which was sent to the petitioner on 2- 7-1993 declining the request of the petitioner for the payment of compensation.

(2.) It has been pleaded by the petitioner that in the month of September 1 October, 1990 the country became the first ever democratic demonstration against the reservation policy introduced by the Government of India. Chandigarh City witnessed active agitation against the reservation policy of the Government. The students employees and many other sections of the society were involved in such activities. For controlling the agitation the Chandigarh Administration had to requisition the extra police personnel/security forces from the neighbouring States. On 23-10-1990 bus bearing registration No. PIC-556 carrying Punjab Armed Police personnel came to Chandigarh for assisting local administration in maintaining the law and order in the city. The bus reached Sector 37-38 crossing at about 9.30 P.M. It was coming from Amritsar side. The bus as well as the police personnel met with an accident and on the alleged provocation the police personnel opened fire on the peaceful demonstrators with the result that Raj Kumar son of the petitioner was killed and number of other persons sustained multiple injuries. Thereafter a police officer Mr. Chaman Lal, ASI lodged FIR No. 207 of 1990 in Police Station. Sector 39 under Sections 147,148, 149, 332, 335, 439, 511 and 307 Of the Indian Penal Code. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the bus reached on the dividing road of Sector 37-38 Chandigarh at 9.45 P.M. A mob of 500600 persons, which was spread all along with the road was shouting slogans. During those days a large section of society including the students and employees were agitating against the acceptance of Mandal Report. They were demonstrating and shouting slogans against the Government. The police personnel should have handled the situation with tact and should have tried to pacify the demonstrators. However, instead of doing that the police personnel opened fire on the demonstrators. They had no business to fire at the demonstrators and kill the innocent people there. Even if there was any need of opening fire they should have opened fire in the air, which could have red away the demonstrators. So far as the information of the petitioners case the police personnel were acting in-a highly provocative manner and most of them were dead drunk and they opened fire on the demonstrators resulting into the death of Raj Kumar a young boy of 21 years who was working as a driver in some private concern. The petitioner father of Raj Kumar is working as Baildar on a class N post in P.W. Department. The petitioner has two other children i.e. one son and one daughter. The son is married and is doing petty business of photography. The daughter is already married. On account of the death of his son Raj Kumar the petitioner suffered mental agony and trauma and being in advanced age he could not be in a position to do any extra work in future years. The deceased used to help his family in the financial matters and with his death, multi-fold economic miseries have come in the family of the petitioner whose son had been murdered by the police which is the agency of the State without any reason and in these circumstances it has be com incumbent and necessary on the part of the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner so as to get rid of their economic difficulties. The petitioner made a representation to the Chandigarh Administration for the grant of company section, which was processed but no final decision was taken. Consequently the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 3415 of 1992 which was disposed off with the directions to the respondents to take a decision one way or the other. Thereafter, the respondents did not take any action within the stipulated period. The petitioner preferred a contempt petition and during the pendency of the contempt petition the orders Annexure P. 8 dated 2-7-1993 were brought to the notice of the petitioner. It was observed by the Court while rejecting the contempt petition that it would be open for the petitioner to challenge the orders declining the representation in the appropriate proceedings. In the present writ challenge has been given by the petitioner to Annexure P.8 and he has further alleged that respondents are liable to pay the compensation on account of their torturous act.

(3.) The case of the petitioner has been contested by the respondents. One set of written statement has been filed by Mr. L.R Yadav, Commandant, 1st Commando Bn., Punjab Police. Bahadurgarh, Patiala, who stated on the relevant day the agitation of the students employees and many other sections of the society was at alarming situation and the agitators were indulging in setting the vehicles on road on fire. The stand of this respondent is that on 23-1-1990. ASI Chaman Lai alongwith his force in bus No. PIP-5616 came to Chandigarh on temporary duty and at about 9.45 P.M. he reached the crossing of Sectors 37-38, 40-41 where 500-600 persons were demonstrating and were putting on fire the tyres and the drums of tarcoal. When the bus reached near the demonstrators they indulged in throwing brick-bats upon the bus. Due to this, the side glasses of the bus were broken. The driver of the bus received injuries at the hands of the demonstrators. Mr. Chaman Lal tried to pacify the demonstrators and 6-7 persons out of the mob tried to set the bus on fire and in the given situation and in his self-defence, the police party had to fire without aiming upon any of the demonstrators. FIR No. 207 of 1990 was registered in this regard on the statement of Mr. Chaman Lal. Putting entire blame on the demonstrators this respondent has taken the stand that the police force under the supervision of Chaman Lal acted in self-defence and as such no torturous liability arises. Annexure P.8 was stated to be justified.