Court on its own motion vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J.—This Court has taken suo motu cognizance on 9th June, 2014, on the news item, which was published in the newspaper "Amar Ujala" in its issue, dated 9th June, 2014, wherein it was reported that 24 students of respondent No. 13-Institute washed away in the Beas river on 8th June, 2014, at about 6.15 P.M. after the Larji Hydel Power Project Authorities discharged the water into the river allegedly without taking all steps required under law.

In terms of the status report filed by the State, FIR No. 61 of 2014 has been lodged under Sections 336 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC") at Police Station Aut, District Mandi, H.P. and the police is conducting investigation. The status report further reveals that all the authorities swung into action, have made rescue operations, the details of which have been given in the status reports and the rescue operations are put in place.

The State has also asked respondent No. 12-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, to conduct an inquiry. After noticing the said order, respondent No. 12 was asked to file inquiry report before this Court vide order, dated 16th June, 2014 with a further direction to remain present in Court alongwith respondents No. 4, 10 and 11 on 19th June, 2014.

The VNR Vigyan Jyoti Institute of Engineering and Technology, Hyderabad was also arrayed as party-respondent No. 13 in terms of order, dated 16th June, 2014.

In terms of the said order, the inquiry report was submitted in the open Court by respondent No. 12-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi/Inquiry Officer, who was present in Court on 19th June, 2014, alongwith respondents No. 4, 10 and 11.

The State officials have filed status report on 24th June, 2014 in the Court indicating what steps have been taken in terms of the said inquiry report.

Respondents No. 4, 10, 11 and 13 have filed replies/affidavits/status reports.

We have gone through the inquiry report. It contains details of the incident, cause of the incident, the person(s) responsible for the same, the post steps taken by the concerned authorities and the steps to be taken in future in order to prevent such incident(s).

Shri Harbans Singh, Fitter; Shri Ved Prakash, Shift Engineer of Larji Power House; Shri Prem Sukh, Additional Assistant Engineer of Larji Power House; Shri Balbir Singh Sharma, Assistant Executive Engineer, Civil Maintenance Division Larji Project; Shri M.S. Dhatwalia, Senior Executive Engineer, Arbitration and Maintenance Division HPSEBL Thalout and Shri Mandeep Singh, Resident Engineer, Larji Power House, are shown to be the official(s)/officer(s), who were the incharge of the dam, particularly control room and its maintenance at the relevant point of time. Therefore, we deem it proper to array them as party-respondents and shall figure as respondents No. 14 to 19 in the array of respondents.

H.P. State Load Discharge Centre (SLDC) and Northern Region Load Discharge Centre (NRLDC) are also arrayed as party-respondents through their Managers/Managing Directors and shall figure as respondents No. 20 and 21 in the array of respondents.

We also deem it proper to array Dr. C. Kiran, Associate Professor, Department of EIE; A. Adithya Kashyap, Assistant Professor, Department of EIE and G. Sumabala, Senior Skilled Assistant, the faculty members of respondent No. 13-Institute, who were accompanying the unfortunate 24 students, at the relevant point of time, as party-respondents and shall figure as respondents No. 22 to 24 in the array of respondents.

Registry to carry out necessary corrections in the cause title. Issue notice, returnable within two weeks, to the newly added respondents No. 14 to 19 through respondents No. 10 & 11, to respondent No. 20 through learned Advocate General, to respondent No. 21 through learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and to respondents No. 22 to 24 through respondent No. 13-Institute, for filing their reply/status within two weeks.

Learned Advocate General to file fresh status report to the effect what steps they have taken and are intending to take in order to make mechanism in place in compliance to the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer-respondent No. 12.

Keeping in view the mandate of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "CrPC") read with the mandate of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the cases titled as Shahid Balwa Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ; Sushila Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, ; Rajeshwar Singh Vs. Subrata Roy Sahara and Others, and Manohar Lal Sharma versus Principal Secretary and others, reported in 2014 AIR SCW 329, we deem it proper to monitor the investigation of FIR No. 61 of 2014 registered under Sections 336 and 304A IPC at Police Station Aut, District Mandi, H.P. and direct the Superintendent of Police concerned to file status of the investigation by or before the next date.

Further, keeping in view the fact that the parents have lost their sons/daughters, who were students of respondent No. 13-Institute and were undergoing Engineering Course, were expected to be at least Engineers, which is so painful and cannot be redressed by any relief, rather no substitute is available. However, till the investigation is taken to its logical end by the Investigating Officer and by the other officers, who are dealing with the issue at various levels and till the disposal of this petition, we deem it proper to exercise inherent powers to grant interim relief to the unfortunate parents, who are hapless, helpless, are broken and shaken. They are on thorns and the said incident is pricking them every second. We are conscious that money is not a substitute, but may be just to ameliorate their pains and sufferings.

The cases relating to liability to pay compensation is the realm of Common Law based on proof of negligence.

The question is-whether the interim compensation can be granted at this stage in view of the fact that issue(s) is/are being dealt with by various Authorities, the things are shaping, investigation is in progress and other aspects are also being examined?

The introduction of the concept of grant of interim compensation based on no fault liability is outcome of the pronouncements of judgments made by the Apex Court. The purpose is to offer prompt financial relief to the sufferers. The niceties of law and facts have no role to play.

It is the duty of the Courts to make such interim orders which are required at the relevant point of time in view of the facts and circumstances of the case read with development of law from time to time.

In order to achieve the purpose of grant of interim or final relief promptly and spurn any attempt at procrastination in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, which are crying for the same, the Courts should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybe''s.

We are of the considered view that the Writ Court can exercise powers in terms of the mandate of the Constitution read with the inherent powers and can grant interim relief, even though it is not specifically provided for.

We have laid our hands on a judgment which is delivered by one of us (Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice) as a Judge of Jammu and Kashmir High Court, wherein interim compensation was granted in a First Civil Appeal, titled as Chief Engineer and Others Vs. Mst. Zeba, . It is apt to reproduce paras 10 to 17 of the said judgment herein:

While going through the provisions of Section 151, C.P.C., this Court can exercise inherent powers in order to do justice in between the parties and can pass such orders which are warranted in the interests of justice.

Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act mandates how to grant interim compensation. This remedy stands introduced in terms of the recommendations made by the Apex Court in the judgments reported in Smt. Manjushri Raha and Others Vs. B.L. Gupta and Others, , N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. Vs. M. Karumai Ammal and Others, and Motor Owner''s Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jadavji Keshavji Modi and Others, . In terms of the said judgments the legislation was made. The aim and object of the said provision is to save the victims/sufferers from starvation, destitution and from other social evils. It is just to ameliorate the sufferings of the victims.

The Apex Court has passed a judgment reported in Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam Vs. Miss Subhra Chakraborty, , wherein Their Lordships have granted interim compensation to the victims of a rape case. In terms of the said judgment the Court is not powerless to come to the rescue of victims and save them from social evils as discussed above. It is profitable to reproduce para-18 of the said judgment herein:

This decision recognizes the right of the victim for compensation by providing that it shall be awarded by the Court on conviction of the offender subject to the finalization of scheme by the Central Government. If the Court trying an offence of rape has jurisdiction to award the compensation at the final stage, there is no reason to deny to the Court the right to award interim compensation which should also be provided in the scheme. On the basis of principles set out in the aforesaid decision in Delhi Domestic Working Women''s Forum, the jurisdiction to pay interim compensation shall be treated to be part of the overall jurisdiction of the Courts trying the offences of rape which, as pointed out above is an offence against basic human rights as also the Fundamental Right of Personal Liberty and Life.

The Apex Court has also held in the judgment reported in Savitri Rawat Vs. Govind Singh Rawat, , that the Courts can grant interim maintenance in the proceedings u/s 488 (Section 125, Cr.P.C.), Cr.P.C. It is profitable to reproduce relevant portion of para-6 herein:

.....if a Civil Court can pass such interim orders on affidavits, there is no reason why a Magistrate should not rely on them for the purpose of issuing directions regarding payment of interim maintenance. The affidavit may be treated as supplying prima facie proof of the case of the applicant. If the allegations in the application or the affidavit are not true, it is always open to the person against whom such an order is made to show that the order is unsustainable. Having regard to the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by a Magistrate u/s 125 of the Code, we feel that the said provision should be interpreted as conferring power by necessary implication on the Magistrate to pass an order directing a person against whom an application is made under it to pay a reasonable sum by way of interim maintenance subject to the other conditions referred to the pending final disposal of the application. In taking this view we have also taken note of the provisions of Section 7(2)(a) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (Act No. 66 of 1984) passed recently by Parliament proposing to transfer the jurisdiction exercisable by Magistrates u/s 125 of the Code to the Family Court constituted under the said Act.

While going through the said provisions of law and while keeping in view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that Civil Court can exercise inherent powers and can grant interim compensation at any stage even though not provided by any other provision of law. It is profitable to reproduce relevant portion of para-4 of the judgment of Apex Court reported in State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Admane Anita Moti and others, .

......Interim orders are granted by the Court as they are necessary to protect the interest of the petitioner till the rights are finally adjudicated upon. Even where it is not provided in the statute this Court has held that the Courts have inherent power to grant it......

It is also profitable to reproduce paras 9 & 10 of the Apex Court judgment reported in Vareed Jacob Vs. Sosamma Geevarghese and Others, herein:

In the case of Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kanhaya Lal Bhargava and Others, , it has been held by this Court that the inherent power of the Court u/s 151 C.P.C. is in addition to and complimentary to the powers expressly conferred under C.P.C., but that power will not be exercised in conflict with any of the powers expressly or by implication conferred by other provisions of C.P.C. If there is express provision covering a particular topic, then Section 151, C.P.C. cannot be applied. Therefore, Section 151, C.P.C. recognizes inherent power of the Court by virtue of its duty to do justice and which inherent power is in addition to and complimentary to powers conferred under C.P.C. expressly or by implication.

In the case of Jagjit Singh Khanna Vs. Dr. Rakhal Das Mullick and Another, , it has been held that temporary injunction may be granted u/s 94(c) only if a case satisfies Order 39 Rule 1 and Rule 2. It is not correct to say that the Court has two powers, one to grant temporary injunction u/s 94(c) and the other under Order 39 Rule 1 and Rule 2. That Section 94(C), C.P.C. shows that the Court may grant a temporary injunction thereunder only if it is so prescribed by Rule 1 and Rule 2 of Order 39. The Court can also grant temporary injunction in exercise of its inherent powers u/s 151, but in that case, it does not grant temporary injunction under any of the powers conferred by C.P.C. but under powers inherent in the constitution of the Court, which is saved by Section 151, C.P.C.

In terms of the said judgments, the Civil Court can exercise inherent powers and grant interim compensation in order to do justice, save victims from social evils and just to ameliorate their sufferings.

Thus, I am of the considered view that Civil Court can grant interim compensation in the cases, where the claimants/plaintiffs have lost their bread earner, son or daughter due to the negligence of the defendant/s and even in the cases where the plaintiff has sustained injuries due to the negligence of the defendant/s which has rendered the plaintiff permanently disabled.

Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the said judgment, the facts of the case, the inquiry report filed by respondent No. 12, which provides who were responsible for the said incident and the role of respondent No. 13-Institute, particularly of those officials/officers, who were deputed with the unfortunate 24 students, we are of the considered view that, prima facie, there is evidence for holding that respondents No. 4, 10 & 11, respondent No. 13 and their officials/officers have performed their duties negligently and because of their utter carelessness, callousness and negligence, 24 budding Engineers have lost their lives.

We deem it proper to record herein that it is yet to be determined whether the act/liability/role of respondents No. 4, 10, 11 & 13 and their officials/officers, who have been arrayed as party-respondents in terms of this order, was outcome of criminal negligence or had knowledge about the consequence of discharge of water into the river without taking steps as required under law, which is punitive? We leave this question open till the Investigating Officer submits status of the investigation.

Admittedly, the unfortunate parents have got admission of the said 24 unfortunate students in a reputed Engineering College and may be, they would have paid a hefty amount for their admission. We have to exercise guess work in order to arrive at the conclusion what should be the just and appropriate compensation to be awarded.

At this stage also, we deem it proper to exercise the guess work and award, by way of interim measure, ''five lacs each in favour of the parents of each of the students, which shall be borne by respondent No. 13-Institute and H.P. State Electricity Board Limited in equal shares, i.e. 50% each. The amount be deposited by or before the next date.

Respondents No. 4, 10, 11 and 13 to 24 are directed to file rejoinder to the inquiry report by or before the next date.

The Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to file latest status report in terms of the previous order by or before the next date.

As these are suo motu proceedings, Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, is appointed as Amicus Curiae and is requested to assist the Court in the matter.

Registry to provide complete set of paper book to the learned Amicus Curiae enabling him to file response, suggestions and to assist the Court.

Registry to furnish copy of the order dasti to the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned counsel representing all the respondents for doing the needful.

List on 9th July, 2014.