IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1001 of 2010 1. Narayani Devi W/O Late Ikram Singh R/O Vill- Bhusaula, P.S. Arrah (Mufassil), Distt. Bhojpur At Arrah Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, Through The Home Commissioner- Cum-Secretary Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director General Of Police Bihar, Patna 3. The Commandant Bihar Military Police 7, Katihar 4. The Suptdt. Of Police Nawadah 5. The General Manager New India Insurance Company, Patna 6. Rinku Devi W/O Late Ashok Kumar Singh D/o Jeri Prakask Nar. Singh, resident of village-Kutubpur, P.S.- Doriganj, District-Saran. ----------- 3. 02.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The husband of the petitioner was deceased in service on which followed compassionate appointment of her son in the Police. Unfortunately, he was also deceased during duty in an extremist attack on 10.2.2009. That escalated the conflict between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law with regard to the ex gratia amount of compensation paid for the death of the deceased. The petitioner mother-in-law is desirous for 50% of the ex-gratia amount paid by the State i.e. Rs. 20 lakhs on the death of her son received by her daughter-in-law, respondent no. 6. It is submitted that her son was provided compassionate appointment to look after her. In 2 graciousness as a mother, she relinquished her right in his favour. On his death, the daughter-in-law is obliged to maintain her. The petitioner is not asking for too much when she claims only 50% of the ex gratia amount. Learned counsel for respondent no. 6, the daughter-in-law raises a preliminary objection that this Court in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution may not interfere with what is primarily a civil dispute between the parties for which the forum is different. He relies on (2010) 8 SCC 329 (Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil). While the petitioner may have made out an adjudicatory civil claim based on the relationship between her and private respondent no. 6, the limits of jurisdiction for the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution restrains this Court from entering into the arena of a private dispute. There is no material to demonstrate that the petitioner had a legal right to receive the ex gratia amount or that the respondents have acted contrary to any obligation in law while disbursing payment to respondent no. 6 alone. In Shalini Shyam Shetty (supra) it has 3 been held at Paragraphs 64 and 65 as follows:- 64. However, this Court unfortunately discerns that of late there is a growing trend amongst several High Courts to entertain writ petition in cases of pure property disputes. Disputes relating to partition suits, matters relating to execution of a decree, in cases of dispute between landlord and tenant and also in a case of money decree and in various other cases where disputed questions of property are involved, writ courts are entertaining such disputes. In some cases the High Courts, in a routine manner, entertain petitions under Article 227 over such disputes and such petitions are treated as writ petitions. 65. We would like to make it clear that in view of the law referred to above in cases of property rights and in disputes between private individuals writ court should not interfere unless there is any infraction of statute or it can be shown that a private individual is acting in collusion with a statutory authority.” A similar view has been taken in A.I.R. 1993 SC 1225 (Mohan Pandey and another, Appellant v. Smt. Usha Rani Rajgaria and others):- “6…..It has repeatedly been held by this Court as also by various High Courts that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property rights between private persons and that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged. And in such a case, the Court will issue appropriate direction to the authority concerned. If the real grievance of the respondent is against the initiation of criminal proceedings, and the orders passed and steps taken thereon, she 4 must avail of the remedy under the general law including the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general law. civil or criminal, are available. It is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant. The jurisdiction is special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly….” The Court is conscious of the predicament of the petitioner as the mother who has lost not only her husband but her son also. But sympathy cannot supplant the law. The hardship that may be caused to the petitioner thereby perhaps cannot be sufficient for granting such relief in the extraordinary jurisdiction. In (2008) 5 SCC 569 (Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu), at Paragraph-20 as follows:- “20. The jurisdiction of the High Court in this regard is rather limited. Its power to interfere with disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well- known factors. It cannot set aside a well-reasoned order only on sympathy or sentiments.” If so advised the petitioner may seek her remedy before the appropriate forum where a wider discretion may be available then the restricted 5 confines of the powers under Article 226. The Court expects the appropriate authorities/forum to consider the matter in all its aspects in its individual wisdom without being prejudiced by the present order. Nothing in this order shall be construed or opined as any observation on the merits of the claims between the petitioner and the private respondents but that this Court declines to entertain the matter merely on the technicality of the writ jurisdiction. The writ application stands dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)