A division bench comprising Justice A. Gopal Reddy and Justice P. Durga Prasad of the AP High Court on Friday set aside an order passed by a single judge in awarding Rs 1 crore compensation to Ramakrishna 70 MM theatre owned by late chief minister N.T. Rama Rao’s family.
The bench while allowing an appeal filed by the state government declared that the single judge committed a serious error in entertaining the writ and awarding compensation against the state government.
JK Traders of Ramakrishna 70 MM, represented by its proprietor Mr N. Jayakrishna filed a writ petition by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution, in 1993 claiming compensation for the damage caused to the theatre during the violence following the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.
The petitioner contended that the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution were violated as there was negligence of the government and its officials in maintaining law and order, and as a result, his property was damaged by the miscreants.
A single judge passed an order on August 28, 2000, by directing the state government to pay `1 crore as compensation. The judge pointed out that the petitioner did not avail a legal remedy available under civil law by filing a suit, but it is not a constraint to pass an order in his favour as the judicial commission appointed on violence after Rajiv Gandhi’s death had established that the police failed to control violence.
The bench found fault with the order by observing that the court estimated the damage caused to the theatre based on a certificate issued by the District Collector, Hyderabad.
The bench ruled that it was not a public document under Section 74 or an official document under Section 78 of the Evidence Act. Hence, the same cannot be taken as a conclusive proof to come to a conclusion that the petitioner suffered a loss of Rs 1,51,50,000.
The bench ruled that unless the petitioner establishes he is deprived of fundamental rights due to the damage caused to the property, affecting his livelihood, he cannot claim compensation.
0 comments: