AMRIK SINGH Vs. S.S. CHINNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order may be read in continuation of our judgment dated Aug. 25, 1999. It was held that there was no wilful disobedience on the part of the respondent and therefore, there was no occasion to answer the question referred to the Full Bench, as in absence of wilful disobedience no contempt would be deemed to have been committed. However, it was found that the authorities were negligent in not appreciating the true import of the judgment in CWP No. 1562 of 1982, decided on May 25, 1982 and despite the notice of recovery, dated March 1, 1982 which had been issued to the petitioner having been quashed, he was arrested and remained in civil prison or about 14 days when he was ordered to be released under the orders of this Court in a Habeas Corpus petition. Because of the illegal detention, the Bench was of the prima facie view that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for his illegal detention. After impleading State of Punjab through Secretary, Home Affairs and Justice Department as a party we had issued notice to the State of Punjab, which was accepted by Mr. Chhina. The notice was as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation for his wrongful confinement and if so how much should be the amount ?

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Chhina, learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of the petitioner by way of CM application No. 13187-CII of 1999, mentioning therein that he is Graduate from Lucknow University and is an agriculturist owning 20 acres of land, which is mostly under sugercane crop. The cultivation is being done by his son. Out of four kanals of land in Samrala, on which his residential house is constructed 8 biswas of land was with the Telephone Exchange and the same was sold to the department in the year 1996 for Rs. 12.00 lacs. His daughter is married and settled to U.K. and his younger son is studying in Thapar Engineering College, Patiala.

(3.) From the aforesaid averments in the affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a well-to-do person in the Society having status and his illegal detention at the behest of the functionaries of the State Government was not only an unnecessary harassment, but it was most humiliating and brought the petitioner to disrepute in the Society, especially amongst his friends and relatives. He submitted that adequate compensation for illegal detention may be ordered to be paid by the State Government as its functionaries acted in an illegal manner in detaining the petitioner.