Punjab and Haryana High Court
WRIT PETITION 7279 of 2009 on 17 October 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJABAND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 7279 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 14[th] December, 2010.
Smt. Krishna DeviPetitioner through Mr. Surinder Deswal, Advocate
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents throughMr. K.D.S.Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL]
The petitioner seeks a Mandamus to direct the State ofPunjab and its authorities to grant her compensatory financialassistance due to the untimely death of her husband while in judicialcustody.
The undisputed facts are that the husband of thepetitioner–Manohar Lal was arrested in a case FIR No. 30 dated8.3.2006, under Sections 409/120-B IPC, registered at PoliceStation, Gidderbaha, District Muktsar and while in judicial custody, heunfortunately passed away on 21.06.2006.
The correct age of the deceased though is not known, but it appears that he was in the age group of 55-60 years. The age ofthe petitioner appears to be 44 years at the time of issuance of theBPL ration card to them and as such she should be now in the agegroup of 50-55 years. The petitioner and her deceased husbandbelong to the poor strata of society living below the poverty line. It is averred that the deceased was the sole bread earner who used toearn his livelihood by selling eatables on bicycle. The deceased hasleft behind two sons and one unmarried daughter. The BPL rationcard also confirms that the deceased and his family were in the stateof penury. The pathetic financial condition of the family prompted theDeputy Commissioner, Moga, also to recommend vide his letterdated 17.10.2006 [Annexure P-4] the grant of assistance of `2.5 lacsto the petitioner and her family members. The petitioner awaited forthe assistance for a long period but finding no response to theDeputy Commissioner's recommendations that she has approachedthis Court.
The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit. TheSuperintendent, Sub-Jail, Muktsar has candidly admitted that thehusband of the petitioner died while he was in judicial custody as anunder-trial.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at somelength and perused the record.
The medical record or the other circumstances no wheresuggest that the deceased was suffering from any serious ailmentwhich could be the cause of his instant death despite normal medicalcare. There is not even an averment in their reply by the JailAuthorities that the deceased was rushed to the hospital andprovided timely medical aid. A hale and hearty person having noailment history and who earns his livelihood by selling eatables on abicycle, would not have met with a sudden death but for the lack oftimely medical assistance. It would thus be totally justified to draw aninference that the State apparatus failed to perform its duties with due diligence, entitling the petitioner to seek compensation inaccordance with law.
It is not disputed that the family of the deceased livesbelow poverty line and the petitioner and her unmarried daughterhave no regular source of livelihood. The responsibility to marry andsettle her unmarried daughter also lies solely on the shoulders of thepetitioner.
Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstancesand the fact that the Deputy Commissioner, Moga had recommendedthe financial assistance of `2.5 lacs, the writ petition is allowed to theextent that the respondents are directed to compensate the petitionerand release the financial assistance of `2.5 lacs in favour of thepetitioner. The needful shall be done within a period of three monthsfrom the date a certified copy of this order is received, failing whichthe petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum.
Disposed of. Dasti.
December 14, 2010. dinesh
( SURYA KANT )JUDGE