^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON-Bl.E MR. DHIRENDRA MISHRA & HON'BLE MR, R.N, CHANORAKAR. JJ PETITIONER ,P. No. 1038 OF 2005 Shankor Thakur, Aged about 38 years, 3/0 snn Bhola IhaKur, K/O vs RESPONDENTS AAiSsion /'L. — •«•l^ k--ri uw i\, 0 C r .^», & t tt.iisi t Ambikapur", District Ambikapur (C(5) 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Throuah: , 1 ne secreTary, ueparTmenT or ,Horne, &.K.S. Bhawan, Mcntraiaya, 'Raipur (C6) 2. District Magistrate (Coliector), Ambikapur, District Sargujc (C<5). 3. Superintendent of Police, P.0. AmbiKapur, UisTncT sarguja (.Lfaj Present: Mr. Jitendra Pali. Advocate M\r. u.N.3. Ueo, &OVT. AavocaTe For the petitioner. For rne State. O R A L OR D E ft (Passed on 9th November. 2009) 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition on 16.3.2005 and Draved for followinq retiefs; i. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. ii. To kindly issue a writ of habeas corpus releasing the petitioner from the imprisonment / custody in central jail OT /imoiKapur aue To The impU9ned order maae Dy the respondent no.2 forthwith. iii. To kindly issue a writ of certiorari for quashment of the aforesaid impugned order vide no.l929/Reader/2005 dated 9/3/2005 passed by the respondent no.2 and also for quashment of the report IV. made by Tne responaenT no.s vide no. n.. A - / cn / c-'rr'M/^i /< o ji /ftK J*^^ J r>/2/^nrtes L,*:^- J.L. - ru.nu./ois/o i CIM^/ic*t/Ui/ uuicu y/o/<-vy^ Utiiny irifes sponsorin9 authority. To kindiy allow appropriate amount of damages by way of compensation to be paid to the petitioner by the respondents. ^^ PageZ la v. To kindly pass such orders as may be deemed fit by the Hon'ble Court with re9ard to the conduct of the respondents no.2 and 3. vi. To kindly make any other order that moy be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that he is an activist of Communist Party of India (for short 'CPI'). The CPI, Sarguja was protesting against the apathy of administration in v^ Drovidinq orooer medical facilities in the District Hosoita! r " •* r - r - -, - - - , _ - _ - _ _ - - - _ _ ^ Sarquja to the residents of the District Sarauja and for that -/ d , • ~ ^ rf purDose they had subinitted their demand to the then Chief -^- Minister of the State and also published pamphlets etc. to create awareness amono the oeoole aoainst the indifferent attitude of the goyernment and ultimately they resor-ted to aaitational aODroach for fulfillment of their demand. Infuriated bv the movement launched by the CPI. on the basis of four false and motivated comolaints lodged by four doctors on 9.2.2005, offence under Sections 384, 511& 506 of the IPC was reaistered aaainst the oetitioner, however, he was granted anticioatory bail bv the learned District Court. 1-lowever, on the basis of reoort dated 9.3.2005 of resoondent No.3 alleainq therein that the oetitioner herein is enqaqed in the act of extortion from the aovernment servants and orivate doctors and public is not coming forward to give evidence aaainst him on account of fear, therefore, oreventiye detention msasures under Section 3 f2) of the National Security Act, 1980 ffor short 'Act, 1980') be drawn aaainst him, the District Maaistrate, Sarqu ja, without verifvinq the truth of the reoort, oassad the detention order dated 9.3.2005, forwarded the same for approval to the State ©oyernmentand also directed that the Detitioner be arrested forthwith and detained in the Centrol Jail; Ambikapur. 4. From oerusal of the return filed by the resoondent State, it aooears that the State fiovernment vide its order dated r r ~ - ?".r^ .:•' -'A^'^ ^,-- Page 3 w 21.3.2005 did not confirm the detention order passed by the District Magistrate and directed his irnmediate release, whereupon. the Detitioner was released on 21.3.2005. 5. Mr. Pa!i, learned counsel for the oetitioner submits that thouqh the State Sovernment did not confirm the detention order oassed bv the District Maaistrate and directed release of the oetitioner and accordinaly the oetitioner has been released on 21.3.2005, however, the?' oetitioner was illsaaliv detained for a eeriod of 12 davs on account of motivated action of the respondent No.2 & 3. Thus, the petitioner's ^ fundamental riaht auaranteed under Article 21 of the ^ . ^_... . -. -. Constitution of India has been violated and in the facts and circumstances of the case, appropriate compensation should be avuarded to tha petitioner for violation of his fundamental rights in public law domain. Reliance is placed on the judoment of the Hon'ble Suoreme Court in the matter of S.P,S, Rgthore Vs, Stote of Haryana & others reoorted in (2005) 10 SCC 1. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the resoondents submits that in view of the return filed by the resoondents herein the Detitioner was detained under the Act. 1980 bv the bistrict AAagistrate, Sar9uja on the basis of report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, however, since the detention order oossed by the District AAaqistrate was not confirmed by the State Sovernnient, the oetitioner has been released on 21.3.2005. In the facts and circumstances no damaaes can be awarded to the oetitioner in the or'oceedinas under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The oetitioner may eursue his remedy of claimina damaaes by filina appropriate proceedings aqainst the individual officer' in the court of comeetent iurisdiction. 7. We haye heard learned counsel for the oarties. 8.1t is true that in aDDpooriate cases of arave iniustice perpetrated upon an individual. which violated his fundamental Page4 77 M ri9hts to life and liberty guaranteed under the Article 21 of the Constitution of Indja, the Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can pass an order for payment of money if such an order is in the nature of compensation consequential upon a depriyation of a fundainental right, as held in S.P.S. Rahtore's case (supra) and catena of judgments referred to in the oboye cited judgnient. However, such a power should not be Sighti^exercised. v' 9. If we took into The facts of the oresent case, we find thnt on the basis of certain comolainfs lodaed bv the doctors. offence \ -' ' . • • was reoistered aqainst the B&titioner and on the basis of -' -' \ r reDort of the Suoerintendent of Police. District Sarauic. in exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the Act, 1980 an order of detention was oassed atiainst hiin and the sairie was forwarded for confirmatiGn to the State fiovernment as per- the Ac-t. The District Mncistrate atso directed to detain the petitioner in anticipation of confirmation from the State fioyernment. Howeyer, the detention order was not confirmed by the State Soyernment and the petitioner has been released on 21.3.2005. 10. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the fncts and circumstances of the oresent case do not warrant award of comBensation in the exercise of iurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the eetitioner is at liberty to pursue his remedy for claiming damaoes aaainst his illegal detention aqainst the resgonsible officers in the court of competent jurisdiction. 11. W.ith the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. CHANDRAKAR. Jndge