LAWS(J&K)-2018-10-71

PYAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF J&K AND OTHER

Decided On October 26, 2018
PYAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
State Of JAndK And Other Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, through the medium of instant writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir inter alia seeks writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 5.00 lacs as compensation to the petitioner on account of his permanent disability (loss of complete vision of right eye sight in an encounter).

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Government has constituted Village Defence Committees (VDCs) in Tehsil Banihal and the petitioner is the member of VDC, Kot Sujmatma. On the intervening night of 1st /2nd August, 2003, an encounter took place in which petitioner suffered the injury in his right eye; the petitioner was admitted in Govt. Medical College, Jammu for treatment. However, he has lost complete vision of his right eye; a report regarding the incident was also lodged at Police Post Ramsu. It is further stated that the respondents are under an obligation to pay compensation, however, the compensation was recommended by the Police Department to Deputy Commissioner, Doda, who in turn, on the other hand informed the respondent No.4-Senior Superintendent of Police, Ramban that such type of compensation was payable by Police Authorities. It is further stated that the matter remained lingering on because of the aforesaid dispute. It is further contended that the respondent No.4, however, has told the petitioner that his case has been recommended to higher police authorities and the sanction was being awaited. The case of the petitioner has not been settled for last six years. In these circumstances, the petitioner has no other efficacious remedy except to approach this Court.

(3.) Objections on behalf of the respondents have been filed by the State counsel, wherein it is stated that the idea of VDCs took place when the terrorists were targeting the soft target and killing the innocent people. In order to deter the forces from carrying out synchronized offensive against terrorists on voluntarily basis, exservicemen and well bodied persons came forward for constitution of VDCs. As such the VDC of Village Kot Halwagan (Sujmatma) was constituted and 303 rifles were provided to them. Some basic training was also imparted to them. The concept of VDCs was based on voluntarily services for protection of life and property of their village. It is further submitted that as per enquiry conducted by SDPO Banihal and SHO Banihal, it was concluded that there was no movement of the terrorists that day and night in their village and area. The complainant fired with his rifle which hit on a stone and due to which a piece of stone hit on the eye and arm of complainant, as a result of which the petitioner sustained injures. So the firing was not because of terrorists attack. Hence, the grounds pleaded by the petitioner being false and without proof. It is further stated that as per the enquiry, it is clear that the injuries caused to the petitioner were due to his own negligence, regarding that aspect SP, Ramban had intimated the then D.C. Doda vide letter dated 21.10.2004. So the grounds pleaded in the petition are based on misrepresented facts and misconceived. The respondents are not under an obligation to pay compensation for petitioner's own negligence. In these circumstances, the respondents prayed that the instant petition may kindly be dismissed with costs.