PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the petition filed by the petitioner (appellant herein) for compensation of Rs. 1.5 crores being ten times of the amount of total loss suffered by him due to burning of his shops during the anti Sikh riots as per policy and guidelines along with further claim of Rs. 5,00,000/ - as compensation for mental torture, harassment and humiliation, has been dismissed.

(2.) THE facts as are necessary for the adjudication of this case are that the appellant is alleged to be a Sikh by religion and claims to have been carrying a wholesale shoe and cosmetic business at Shimla since 1981 at Shop No. 4 along with Flat No. 4 at the Rink View Building, Rivoli Road, Shimla in the name and style of M/s. Shimla Footwear and was assigned CST No. -2453 dated 14.09.1981 and Sales Tax No. -SIMIII4186 dated 14.09.1981. It was also alleged that the appellant had been paying a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - to 12,000/ - quarterly as sales tax during the years 1981 to 1984. In the anti Sikh riots which took place in the wake of assassination of late Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, in November, 1984, the shop of the appellant was set ablaze at about 11 p.m. on 3rd November, 1984. The appellant approached the police, who not only refused to registered the FIR but connived with the rioters and in turn falsely implicated the appellant vide FIR No. 283 dated 04.11.1984 under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code which was registered at Police Station, Shimla. Consequently, the appellant was arrested on 04.11.1984 and was coerced by the police to confess and when he refused to do so, he was kept in custody for next two days. Later, this case is reported to have been cancelled vide Cancellation Report dated 30.06.2006. On 16.01.2006, the Government of India, announced a Special Rehabilitation Package for the 1984 anti Sikh riots victims which formed the basis of the writ petition.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge came to a categorical finding that the respondents No. 1 and 2 had never admitted the case of the appellant to be that of a victim of anti Sikh riots and further concluded that the appellant for the stocks gutted in fire had already received the insurance claim. Insofar as the claim of the appellant regarding the stock of uninsured cosmetic items worth Rs. 8,00,000/ - which was stated to be lying in the first floor of the premises is concerned, the same was held to be highly disputed and the appellant was relegated to the appropriate forum for the redressal of his grievances.