<£> '"VI A <% ys( ^. %y^^.^d ^^r"^ •<^= -1 c f^c ,/>/ ^o IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARm W.P. No. US6 /2001 Petitioner Dr. Mehmood Nayyar Azam, Aged about 49 years, S/o Late Md. Ishaque Medical Practitioner by occupation and Social Worker, R/o West Chirimiri Colliery, Pondi, Chirimiri, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) VERSUS Respondents^ ^r: ..••^s- Ai-^ ^G--', (3. .' 1%^ l!.5^%-:rl a ,.^<Si^%l:rf^ .'^v%^":K'n ^>"'' --l^'1 '^—.'' o^ ly ^f^ <§<k ^6: , ^^ ,0. ^ g~^^5^L ^ r^^ ^^ ^^' State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary of Home Ministry, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Superintendent of Police, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) National Human Right Commission, Through - its Chairman, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi -01 H. Peter, presently posted as S.H.O. Korba Police Station, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) A. R. Sahu, A.S.I., presently attached at Jashpur Police Line, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) Arvind Sapyal, A.S.I., ^--< presenti^a.ttached^a^BaikunthpuyBotrceLine, Baikunthpur^Distf. ^o-r4ya^C:G^ Rais Ahmad, S/o Lallu Khan, Aged about 38 years Ex Secretary Anjuman Bagh-E-Firdaus, Dozer opreator, West Chirimiri Colliery, Pondi, Chirimiri, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) ^€^ T^ ^ WRIT PETITTON TTNDER ARTTCLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTI- TUTION OF INDIA. HI^H COURT OF CHHATTIS^RH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI I M.QUbbUSI & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. A6AKWAL. JJ. W.P.N0.1156/2001 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Vs Dr, Mehmood Nayyar Azam State of C.G. and others Present: Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. V, Harit, Dy. Adv. <?eneral for respondents No,l A 2/State. Mr. Dhsraj K Wankhede, Advocate for the respondent No.4 Mr. K.N. Nande, Advocate for the respondent No.5. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 3rd August, 2010) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for foJlowing substantial reliefs:- %l7J. to summon the entire record relating to the petitioner available with the respondent no-2 for its kind perusal and proper appreciation of circumstances and for passing appropriate order, 7.2. to issue writ, order or direction to respondents to stop the petitioner's victimizatjon about which C.S.P. Chirmiri has also said in its report that it js politically motivoted. 7.3. to punish the respondents 4, 5, 6 and 7 severely for their illegal, unconstitutional and contemptuous acts whereby they have nakedly violated the pious human rights of the petitioner, 6^ ?^ 7.4. to requisite the report prepared by or under respondent No.2 and issue approprjate order or direction on it, 7.5. to direct the respondents to compensate the petitioner for the damages and mental agony caused to him- 7.5A to direct the respondent to compensate the petitioner for the dama9es and mental agony to the tune of fts.10,00,000/-" 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is possessing degree of B.A.M.S. and practicing in West Chirmiri Colliery, Pondi area, used to be always ahead to agitate against exploitation of the weaker section of society. The petitioner was arrested on 22.9.1992 by the police in some cooked up charge and produced before the Magistrate at Manendragarh for judicial remand. He was required to be taken to Baikunthpur Jail but by the time the order passed, jt was evening and therefore, he was kept in the lock-up of Manendragarh Police Station. On 24.9.1992 the petitioner was required to be taken to jail but first he was taken to Pondi Police Station at 9.00 a.m< where his photographs with offensive words were taken and subsequently these photographs of the petitioner have been circulated in the general public and even in the revenue proceedings the respondent No.7 has produced the sanie. Circulation of photographs of the petitioner has not only defamed the petitioner but also caused mental agony to his children and wife- The petitioner made a complaint to the respondent No,3, who in turn asked respondent No.2 to submit report in the matter. However, despite lapse of sufficient when the ^" , petjtioner did not hear anything about the action taken against the erring officers he again wrote a Jetter to the respondent No.3 on 26.9.2000. On the said letter of the petitioner, the respondent No.3 again issued directions to the respondent No.2 to look into the grievance of the petitioner and take appropriate action, However, when no action has been taken by the respondent State authorities against the erring officers, the petitloner has filed the instant petition for commanding and directing the respondent State to punish respondents No.4, 5 A 7 on the 9round that action on their part was not only in complete transgression of human rights but also in absolute and complete violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner. The petitjoner has also claimed compensatipn to the tune of fts.IO Lac for the damages and mental agony caused to him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, Relief Clause No.7.3 was fulfilled under the directions of this Court and now only the compensation part, as claimed in Relief Clause No.7.5A, remained there. 5. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the respondent State authorities have taken cognizance of the harassment meted out to the petitioner by the erring personnel of the police department and initiated departmental enquiry against them in which they were found guilty and punishment has also been awarded to them, 6, In that view of the matter and keeping in mind the settled position in law that the master is the responsible for all the acts committed by his servants, we are of the opinion that the State ^overnment is responsible for the acts committed by the officers in-charge or any other police official of the concerned police station and better course for the 1^;- "^.. ^ ^ petjtioner would be to move a representation before the respondent No.l claming amount of compensation and on such representation is made, the respondent No.l shall consider and decjde the same by a speaking order as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order along with the representation. In case the petitioner feels aggrieved by the decision taken by the State fiovernment on his representation, it will be open for him to take recourse to the proceedings availabie to him under law< 7. Ordered accordingly, 8. The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 9. Certified copy as per rules< ftoshan Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge