IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 OP.No. 16495 of 2000(L) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SREENIVASAN, AGED 48, PARAMBATH HOUSE, POOLADIKKUNNU, ERANHIKKAL P.O., CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, POLICE COMMISSIONER OFFICE, MANANCHIRA, CALICUT. 3. CORPORATION OF CALICUT, CORPORATION BUILDING, CALICUT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. MR.ANAND, PROPRIETOR, ADITHYA KALAMANDIR, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER K.SANDESH RAJA FOR R1 & R2 SRI.KPG.MENON FOR R3 SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,SC,KOZHIKODE CORP FOR R.3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.27095/2000 IN OP. NO.16495/2000 DISMISSED 21.08.2008 SD/- K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE INJURIES AND HOSPITALISATION OF THE PETITIONER . EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DT. 4.5.2000 SENT TO THE 2ND, 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J ============================== O.P. NO. 16495 OF 2000 ============================ DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an employee of a hotel at Kozhikode. On 19-4-2000, he has gone to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode to see a relative of him admitted there. From there he returned and reached the Indira Gandhi Bus Stand maintained by the Corporation of Calicut. It is a very busy bus stand frequented by large number of commuters and hundreds of buses. The second respondent allowed the shooting of a film inside the Corporation bus stand at 4 p.m. on 19-4-2000. A large number of persons were assembled there to see the shooting as well as the cine artists. A scene of setting fire on a motor cycle by an unruly mob and the subsequent arrival, chasing and lathi charge by police of them was one of the items of the shooting. For this purpose, a large number of actors were present in the police uniform . There was present actual police force also to maintain law and order. A large number of people gathered to see the film shooting and the same created a law and order problem. To control the mob, the police resorted to lathi charge. The petitioner submits, OP 16495/2000 -2- when the lathi charge started, he ran away and fell in a nearby drain and his leg was grievously injured. The police initially admitted him in the Beach Hospital and thereafter, he was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Calicut. He underwent major surgeries and he has to suffer severe pain. There was nobody to lookafter him. He suffered substantial damages. His rights as a human being were violated by the illegal and unauthorised actions of the Municipal Corporation. The State is also vicariously liable for the commissions and the omissions of the Corporation. So, the petitioner has preferred this original petition claiming a compensation of Rs. five lakhs from respondents 1 to 3. 2. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which the allegations of the petitioner are denied. Even the presence of the petitioner at the scene of occurrence is disputed in the counter affidavit. The Corporation has also filed a counter affidavit denying its liability to pay any compensation. It is submitted that on the day the bus stand premises were given to the 4th respondent for film shooting subject to certain conditions. 3. This Court on 6-6-2007 passed the following order in this original petition: “The writ petition is for compensation. The allegations and the liability have been denied in the counter affidavit. There is no OP 16495/2000 -3- reply affidavit so far, though the counter affidavit is filed in October, 2002. In case no reply as such is filed within a week from today, it will be taken that the petitioner has no objection in dismissing the writ petition in the light of the counter affidavit.” But the petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit within the time stipulated. Therefore, this original petition is only to be dismissed. The facts pleaded by the petitioner based on which he claims compensation are disputed by the respondents. Therefore, this Court cannot grant the relief to the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above position, this original petition is dismissed. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE ks.