1 $- {c 20 + IN THB HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P. (O No. 13826 of 2009 TAZIEN KHANAM AND ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Vivek Vidyarthi, Advocate. THE STATE, NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: N4r. Rajiv Nanda with Ms. Rac.hna Saxena, Advocates for R-lto R-5 and R-l1 and R-14. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER , 05.08.2010 1. Tire prayer in this writ petition by the two tninor children of late Shri Jafar Khan is for a direction to the Respondent to compensate them in the sntn of Rs.20 lakhs each for the death of their father in judicial custody. 2. The death took place on 6u' Sepiember 2001 at the Deen Dayal Upadhyay ('DDU') Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. The casc of the Petitioners is that the deceased was higirly diabetic and he rvas deliberately not provided insulin by the Respondent jail authorities which led to his deaflr. 3. In the list of dates and in the writ petition, after narrating errents up to l1il' Fcbruary 2002, the Petitioners have straightway referred to the rnedical certificate issued bir a doctor in private practice on 23'd November 2009 purporting to certify the cause of death of the late father of the Petitioners. Since there was a huge gap 'ag; d, W.P.(c) No. 73826 ol 2009 Page 1 of 4 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified in narration for about seven years, this Court on 16th March 2010 required the Petitioners to file an affidavit explaining what transpired beyond 11n' February 2002,when a reply was received from the Deputy Secretary (Horne) that the Petitioners should obtain a copy of the post mortem of the deceased from the office of tlre Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and 23'd November 2009, when the Petitioners obtained the rnedical certificate. V{ 4. Although the Petitioners' affidavit has not come on record, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the Respondent that with regard to death of the deceased, his brother, i.e. the uncle of the Petitioners, Shri Anwar Gauri had filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 314 of 2OO3 which was disposed on 24tr' March 2003 by this Court by the following order: "We direct the Deputy Comrnissioner of Police North that the matter inquired into and inform the Petitioner about the outcorne of the'enquiry within six weeks. No further directions a.re necessary in this petition. The salne is accordingly disposed of." 5. Thereafter a miscellaneous application being Crl. M.A. No. 1202 of 2004 was filed. This application was disposed of on 22"d April 2004 by this Corut by directing the Deputy Commissioner of Police (I.{orth) to get the rnatter further enquired into on the following aspects: "1. Was the deceased a patient of Diabetes Mellitus and insulin dependent? 2. If so, was he being given insulin injections after his arrest on 9d' of August, 2001until his death on 6ft of Septernber, 2001 W.P.(C) No. 13826 of 2009 Page 2 of 4 I while in jail custody; and 3. If not, whether withdrawal or denial of insulin injections the deceased had led to respiratory emba:rassment due bilateral pneumonitis, resulting into his deaflr?" 6. The enquiry obviously did not support the case of the Petitioners that their father was deliberately killed by withdrawing the insulin. When a frrther application being Crl. M.A. No. 6982 of 2004 was filed, it was disrnissed by this Court on 50' October 2005 by the following order: "Tlris writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 24tt' March, 2003 and thereafter, Crl. M. No. i20212004 r,vas filed whiclr was also disposed of vide order datecl 22"d April,2Q04. Now another application being Crl. M.A. 698212004 has been moved to ftrther enquire into the matter. In view of the status report filed and the enquiry held if the Petitioner had any grievance, he could have taken recourse to alternative remedies available to hirn in law. Repeated applications for further inquiries are not maintainable. ' Dismissed." 7. In light of the above orders, where the brother of the deceased had Llnsllccessfully petitioned this Court on more than one occasion, there is no scope to entertain another writ petition nine years after the death of the deceased. Apart frorn the fact that there is no explanation why the orders in the earlier petition and application were not disclosed by the Petitioners, no factual foundation has been lajd to sustain the prayer for compensation. There is nothing to show, even prirna facie, that the deaflr of the Petitioners' father in jail took place on account of any to to l5d negligence of the jail staff. W.P.(c) No. 73826 of 20o9 Poge 3 of 4 1. !r d 8. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. It is dismissed, but in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. S. MURALIDHAR, J AUGUST 05, 2O1O dn Page 4 of 4 W.P.(c) No.73826 of 2009