\// /\/ Uggf raw; ~ (é) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1 Writ Petition No. [5’0 7 of 2004 / PETITIONERS :1 ' Subhaskar, aged 47 years, Late Kartik$§hmKan Q S/o. (Village Assistant) f «u \z\ Secretary Janpat Panchayat »' é Q Saraipali, Tahsil Saraipali ,.";\rs°b= seié‘W ‘ District Mahasamund (C.G.) Q' t‘ e” oby 2. Rohidas Taram, Aged 35 years Fr‘ $5 S/o. Shri Ramchandra Taram Gram Sarpanch, Panchayat wa, Janpad Panchayat-Charama District Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS :l State of Chhattisgarh £5; Through Secretary Department of Panchayat 8n Rural Development, . i i D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) l i Collector Kanlter, District Kanker (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Charama Tahsil and District Kanker (C.G.) //2// PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227‘ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF SUITABLE DIRECTIONS, ORDERS OR WRITS INCLUDING WRITS IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS ETC. The peTiTioners have preferred fhis wrif pe'rifion under Ar‘ricle ' 226/227 of fhe Consfi‘i'u‘rion of India quesfioning flae iegalify and propriew of dhe noTices Annexwes P-2 & P—3, whereby each of ’rhe petifioners have been asked To pa} an amoun'r of Rs.64,034/—. ‘Aéw $2>~¥WJ reTu’rn has aiready been. fiied on beha‘f of fhe resgonden’rs, +hereforei as agre by learned counsel for fhe parfies, The maf‘ler is being finally dispose of a? The admission s'lage' i?self. The case of The pe‘riTiohe s as s’eT ouT in “(he wriT pem‘ion is fhaf pe‘ri‘iioner No.1 is ihe Serefary (Village Assistan‘l), Jahpacl ‘PahchayaT, Saraipali arid peTiTioer No.2 is The Sarpanch of Gram Panchaya‘l: Sirsida. A civil sui'i ws filed by one Meena Bai di §amesh Kumar agains‘r responden'fs No.2 3 for compensafion, in fhe Cour? of 1“ Addi’rional Dis’rric‘r Judge, Ka r, on The ground ThaT on accounT of falling of a wall of The waTer Tnk on 18.7.2001 Their son HiTendra e j n XI-HC~—78 mm b3 KPIS'OCI/ W 20% mmw am 311mm mm (Wu) mmm ' WW wm $ sifdq W 23.12.2004 On a men'rion being made, fhe ma‘rfer is Taken up for hearing. Shri L.C. Dash, counsel for the pefh‘ioner's. Shri Ufkarsh Verma, Panei Lawyer for ’rhe 5Ta‘re/respondem‘s N01 and 2. 5PM Aiok Bakshi, counse! fcr responden‘f N03. Heard. XI-HC 78 @ 3a WW “a3’?%<‘4‘s‘r$ ‘W 1 i m0 Cr K 3:;‘i’62T9? "’4? “if €51?) Wafwa: WWW W isn‘ga \mé? WQWW “Hm 13f QM (1W \ 2 ~ £3 eéiim m7 ciaimed, and Thu? sui‘t was on‘resfed by responden‘fs No.2 & 3. However, vide The judgmen‘r a d decree dated 5+h December, 2002, the %earned Addi‘i’iom! Dis ricf Judge passed a decree of Rs.1,00,000/- againsi respond m‘s No.2 & 3 herein and They were direc‘ied To pay The amoun‘i of compensai‘ion f0 The pareni‘s of Hi‘iendra Kumar, ‘rhe piainfiff in fhai' case. If is sTaTed fna‘r l The I amoun‘i has aiready been paid y “i‘he respo‘ndeni‘s. As a consequence of rho? ‘i‘he responden'i's issued fhe impugned no‘rices of recovery from he pe‘rmoners on The 9ro nd *ha‘i *ne said wafer ”rank, was consTrucTed under ”their super ision and if was mem‘ioned iha‘i since “ihe qualify of cons‘rruc‘rion was poor, ihaf is why The wali coliapsed, as . a resul’r of which The accidan occurred and fhe responden‘rs were made iiabie for ‘i’he compensa‘ii n amount The ground, which has been raised in ’i'his wrif pe’rii‘ion by he pe‘rifioners, is ’i‘ha‘i ihey were no? par‘iies in fhe suit fherefor They are nof responsible for i‘he 3 compenSa‘hon arid The recovetgy is being made from fhem wh’hou‘f giving “(hem opporfuni‘ry of hea ing in an arbifrary manner. Therefore, if has been prayed Thai The noTiyces Annexures P-E & P-S be quashed. On The oTher hand, The ground which hae been Taken by The respondenTs mainly menTioned ii repli?% para 5.7 of The reTurn filed on behalf of The STaTefrespon enTs No.1 3i 2 is ThaT sincejw paid The amounT~which is a resulT of direcT“c—onsW/ 1 i XI—HC 78 a’sxémwfzw wmm ha W C! mmm a? “$ waiaéh “ma? éfw x’it‘m €5§§m WW Wmémé: y/ To ensure proper quali‘fy of fhe wafer ‘fhe pe‘rifioners, as fhey faHed mnk a‘r #he Time of consfmc‘ricn which is direcfly affribu'mble To The g, Therefore, fhe compensa‘rion omoun‘r awarded by fhe decree of 'i'lre civil sui‘i is recoverable from The pe‘rifioners. wrongful acTs of T‘he pe‘l‘ifioner IT-has been furTaher menTioned ThaT The erecTion and consi'ruci'ion of The wafer mmk was under The supervision of The pe‘rifioners, fherefore, fhey are responsibie for fhe said amoun'i’. Affer imquiryi responder]? No.3 submiffed o repom‘ 1‘0 “the Ziia Panchayaf, Kanker, fhaT fhe pe‘ funk, fhe reporf was submh‘fed To fhe Governmen‘i and fhe Governmenf affer due considera‘rion passed The order of recovery of fhe compe Learned counsel for fhe fank was consfrucfed under fhih supervision of The pefi’rioners, if was, Their duTy To ensure The qualifl/ of consTrucTion which fhey failed and ulfimafely fne acoldenf fook piece as a resuif of which a boy died and *he Addi‘honai Disfric‘r Judg passed The order for compensa‘rion fherefore, The compensafion is recoverable from The peTiTioners. poor consfrucfion of The wafer 'i‘i'ioners are responsible for exfremely i nsa’rion amounf from The pefifioners. responden‘rs argued fhaf as The wafer l On The oTher hand, lear ed counsel for The peTiTioners argued i fhaT fhe peTiTioners were nevei‘ given show cause noTice as To why The K amounT should noT be recover d from Them. He furTher argued ThaT The peTiTioners were never asked ’To appear’EeT/owfhowand i N WW 1W & zooe WT ~ 13 henna) XI-}1C~7 8 mm (p V>I5©€x m Tm: (@wa) mm%%am _ ” 4 wwwflwm expEaim as 1'0 why fhe amoun‘r sh( uld noT be recovered from Them, and wifhouf giving ?hem any oppom‘uhEry To defend Their case, fhey have been held responsible. Having heard learned cvunsei for ihe par’ries and having perused The record, E am of 1he opinion Thai” The poin'i' raised by ieamed counsel for The pe'riiioners is reasonable, as fhe principle of naiural jusfice has been violai'ed in ‘l'his case. If is ’rrue ‘I’ha‘i respondenfs No.2 64 3 and ‘ihe Governmenf were made responsible for compensafion amount which was a resul’r of falling of The wall of a wafer fank‘ which was consfrLcTed under fhe supervision of fhe pefi‘i’ioners, buf fhe pe’rifioners were nof pariy before The Addifional Disfric‘r Judge, fherefore, fhere was no opporfunify for ‘i'hem 1'0 defend fhe case. Proper course. for The responden‘rs was fhaf They ougl’n‘ f0 have ins‘fifufed an inquiry 'l'o The facf whefher The pefifioners were negligenf and "esponsihle for poor consfrucfion or some ofher persons were responsible l .c.or poor cons’rrucfion, and The 1 W m 4V 5W1aafm‘‘3? ammww A1 g; $3f¢m m?! ! pefifioners and fhose ofher pers ns responsible for poor consfrucfion should have been given oppor‘f nify To defend fheir case and allow fhem To produce record which f ey wanfed fo produce. Affer hearing fhe pefi’rioners or any ofher erson responsible, The respondenfs oughf f0 have passed The order Sinoe, r10 opporj‘’w wW/ -§~ XI-i—IC——78 33W, gm,W wwmwwj m 200 4 amimnw WWW WW (tge'rfgaga) mmm g §~ wwmff’fgirWK ‘awimazrw fhe “i‘her'efore, Thiis ground oniy The impugned nm‘ices pefifiorier's, an are iiable to be quashed. In fhe result The wr'i’r pa‘riTion is ai!owed and The impugned no'rices are quashed. However, i" is made ciear That The responden’rs shall nof be precluded from insii‘rufing inquiry and af‘i'er holding fhe inquiry,iin accordance wifh iaw ihey wiii be enfi‘ried 1‘0 proceed agains? The responsibie persons. 1n view of ihis order, M.(W‘)P.No.1347/ZOO4 s‘rands disposed of. Cerfified copy as per Rules. Sdl- L.C.BHADOO Judge Soma