K. Elango and Others vs The Secretary and Others

The petitioners who are the practicing Advocates of this Court and who are the General Secretary, All India Lawyers Union, Tamil Nadu State

Committee; the Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry; President, Madras High Court Advocates'' Association; Secretary,

Madras Bar Association; President, Women Lawyers'' Association and President, Law Association, have come forward with this petition seeking

for the relief of directing the respondents to produce the body of M. Vetrivel, Advocate before this Court and set him at liberty; to send him for

treatment to a hospital in Chennai; to compensate him adequately for the injuries suffered by him and to initiate proceedings against the erring

police officials. The petitioners state that they have filed this petition specifically for the cause of Mr. M. Vetrivel, a practicing Advocate at Mettur,

Salem District who has suffered serious injuries while he was under the custody of the police officials. The petitioners in the affidavit filed in support

of the petition, has made the following allegations:-

[a] One Mr. M. Vetrivel, is an Advocate, practicing at Mettur, Salem District. On 11.06.2007, due to a scuffle between two students, viz., Vinoth

and Mahendran studying in Class 9 in the Government Higher Secondary School, Pudusampalli, Mahendran died on the spot. It was claimed by

the School Authorities and the police that the said Mahendran died after an attack of epilepsy and being aggrieved against the said claim, the

parents, relatives and the public gathered and protested demanding justice. In the protest, several political party personalities and the public have

participated by conducting ""Road Roko"" agitation. They have demanded for furnishing FIR copy. The Inspector of Police, 5th respondent herein,

has read out the contents of the FIR to the gathering; but he was not able to read it properly. At about 8.30 p.m. Mr. M. Vetrivel was returning

home from his office along with his other advocate friends including one Sureshkumar, Advocate and due to the ""road roko"" they were not able to

proceed further at that time and they went near the scene to find out what was happening.

[b] Large number of armed policemen, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildar, Sub-Inspectors of Police,

Inspectors of Police were present on the spot along with the 5th respondent. On seeing the Advocates including Mr. M. Vetrivel, the 5th

respondent called them and asked them to read out the contents of the FIR to the crowd. As it was dark and the handwriting was not so legible,

Mr. M. Vetrivel read it slowly and the crowd started shouting. As a result, he was not able to complete the reading of the FIR. The police officials

indulged in lathi charge to disperse the crowd. The public and the political personalities left the dead body of Mahendran and ran away. The

Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Revenue Divisional Officer called the Advocates to accompany them to

cremate the body of the deceased. But the advocates refused and the said Vetrivel along with his friends left for his residence.

[c] Being provoked over the conduct of Mr. M. Vetrivel, the 5th respondent along with the other police officials entered into the house of Mr. M.

Vetrivel around 5.00 a.m. on 12.06.2007 while he was sleeping and dragged him out and thereafter, took him to the Karumalaikudal Police

Station. All of them abused Mr. M. Vetrivel and the police officials beat Mr. M. Vetrivel and also assaulted Mr. Sureshkumar, Advocate.

Thereafter, the police officials held the hands of Mr. M. Vetrivel from outside the window and the 5th respondent and the Deputy Superintendent

of Police beat him with lathis on his back indiscriminately and tortured him physically. He was also kicked with their boots. As a result, Mr. M.

Vetrivel suffered injuries throughout his body. Apart from the said custodial torture, a false case was also registered against the Advocates and

took them to the Court.

[d] On seeing the bruises on Mr. M. Vetrivel and on another advocate, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Mettur, directed them to be sent to

the hospital for treatment. They underwent treatment at the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Hospital at Salem. The 5th respondent was

visiting the hospital everyday and threatened them with dire consequences. The said advocates have not only been brutally attacked by the police,

but also, have been prevented from giving complaint till the filing of the present petition. Mr. M. Vetrivel sent a letter dated 18.06.2007 requesting

the President and Secretary of All India Lawyers Union to help them for ensuring their safety. On 22.06.2007, a police official from SBCID,

Salem, met Mr. M. Vetrivel at the hospital and threatened him. Mr. M. Vetrivel was discharged from the hospital on 24.06.2007. The Discharge

Summary would disclose the extent of barbaric assault committed by the police officials. Mr. M. Vetrivel is in continuous threat. Accordingly, with

the above said specific statements made in the affidavit, the petitioners have come up with this petition seeking for the above said reliefs.

The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated Nil. 07.2007 on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3; 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit

dated 14.11.2008 and the 6th respondent also filed a counter affidavit dated 04.07.2007, denying the allegations made against him and against the

other police officials. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent that the ""Road Roko"" incident was due to the instigation of Mr.

M. Vetrivel, Advocate, who is a DYFI activist along with one Sureshkumar, Advocate and other advocates. It is further stated that in order to

restore peace and tranquility, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mettur was forced to move that place with a minimum available force and that

alone necessitated to take the Tahsildar also along with the police. Agitating mob did not listen to the request of the police and other officials. The

Road Roko was going on for nearly about 5 hours under the leadership of Mr. M. Vetrivel and Sureshkumar, Advocates. As the crowd not

accepted the request and not dispersed from the agitated place, they pelted stones indiscriminately on the police personnel and causing damage to

the police vehicles. In order to protect and provide security to the life of general public and the Government officials and to prevent further damage

to the public vehicles, minimum force was used after issuing due warning to the crowd to disperse. A complaint was also registered on the basis of

the report by one Azhagesan VAO on the file of Karumalaikudal Police Station in Cr. No. 181/2007 for the offences u/s. 341, 147, 148, 188,

332 IPC read with sections 3 and 4 of TNPPDL Act on 12.06.2007 at 03 00 hours. Accordingly, Mr. M. Vetrivel along with two others, were

arrested on 1.206.2007 at 07 00 hours and they were found to be having injuries on their bodies and they were produced before the Medical

Officer, Government Hospital, Mettur for giving treatment to the injuries sustained by them during the dispersal of the unlawful assembly. When

Mr. M. Vetrivel and others were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Mettur, no complaints were given by Mr. M. Vetrivel or

by the other advocates.

With the above said pleadings in the affidavit of the petitioners and the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent, we have heard the

arguments of Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.N. Thambidurai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that this is a clear case of abuse of powers by the police and

Mr. M. Vetrivel, an Advocate from Mettur, has been subjected to the custodial torture and suffered serious injuries. It is brought to the notice of

this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as the advocates complained that they are facing serious threat to their lives at the hands of

the police even during their treatment at the hospital, this Court passed an order dated 28.06.2007 giving direction that ""some senior police official

should ensure that no threat is given to the injured who is admitted in the Government General Hospital, Chennai"". It is further contended that

pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 28.06.2007, the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority submitted his report

dated 03.07.2007 and the said report contains the details of the injuries suffered by Mr. M. Vetrivel. Learned counsel would point out that in the

report, it is specifically stated that several injuries were found on the body of Mr. M. Vetrivel and further it is stated that they could be caused only

by using blunt objects like lathis [sticks]. It is further contended that the said injuries could not have been caused due to mild lathi charge as claimed

by the prosecution to disperse the crowd who were conducting ""road roko"" on the date of occurrence. He would submit that Mr. M. Vetrivel also

filed a petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C., in Crl. OP. No. 26055/2010 seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against him in SC. No.

166/2010 pending on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mettur and the said petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this

Court by the order dated 10.01.2011 quashing the proceedings holding that the continuation of the said proceedings against Mr. M. Vetrivel is

nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is contended that in this matter, a prima facie case was made out by the petitioners to the effect

that Mr. M. Vetrivel has suffered serious injuries all over his body only during the police custody and due to the custodial torture. In view of the

same, it is contended that it is obligatory on the part of the State Government to compensate Mr. M. Vetrivel reasonably.

Per contra, Mr. A.N. Thambidurai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the petitioners have not at all made out a prima

facie case to the effect that Mr. M. Vetrivel has suffered injuries while he was in the police custody. It is contended that except the allegations

made in the affidavit and the representation, there is no other materials to substantiate the claim of the petitioners to the effect that Mr. M. Vetrivel

has suffered injuries only at the hands of the police and that too, only during the police custody. He would contend that Mr. M. Vetrivel has

suffered injuries only during the lathi charge, that too, while a minimum force was used by the police with a view to disperse the crowd who were

conducting ""road roko"" on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 11.06.2007. It is also contended that the allegations made against the police officials

have been emphatically denied by the respondents 3, 5 and 6 by filing a detailed counter affidavits. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor that Mr. M. Vetrivel is not entitled to seek the relief of any compensation as there is absolutely no fault on the part of

the police officials or the Revenue officials.

We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and thoroughly scrutinised the entire

materials available on record and perused the affidavit filed by the petitioners; counter affidavits filed by the respondents 3, 5 and 6, the report

dated 03.07.2007 filed by the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority and the order passed by the learned Single Judge of

this Court dated 10.01.2011 in crl. OP. No. 26055/2010 quashing the proceedings initiated against Mr. M. Vetrivel in SC. No. 166/2010 on the

file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mettur.

At the outset, we are constrained to state that the materials available on record disclose that all was not well during the fateful day of

occurrence, i.e., on 11.06.2007 in respect of the alleged road roko conducted by the public protesting the mysterious death of a school student.

The crux of the question involved in this matter is to the effect that whether Mr. M. Vetrivel, a practicing Advocate has sustained injuries due to the

custodial torture or due to the lathi charge of the police on the ground of dispersement of the crowd for causing obstruction to the public traffic on

11.06.2007 by conducting road roko.

For considering the above said crucial question, we have meticulously verified and perused the entire materials available on record. It is also

relevant to refer the sequence of events took place in this aspect. It is pertinent to note that apart from the 1st petitioner, the entire Bar of the

Madras High Court, viz., Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry; President, Madras High Court Advocates'' Association;

Secretary, Madras Bar Association; President, Women Lawyers'' Association and President, Law Association, have come forward with this

petition raising serious allegations of the alleged atrocities committed by the police officials resulting in serious injuries to Mr. M. Vetrivel who is a

practicing advocate at Mettur, Salem District. It is pertinent to note that in the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent, it is stated as here

under:-

10.... They were found to be having injuries on their bodies. Then they were produced before the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Mettur

for giving treatment to the injuries sustained during the dispersal of the unlawful assembly.

In the counter filed by the 3rd respondent on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, it is specifically stated in paragraph 5 as here under:-

5... They were found to be having injuries on their bodies. Then they were produced before the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Mettur for

giving treatment to the injuries sustained during the dispersal of the unlawful assembly.

The 6th respondent, in his counter affidavit, also stated in paragraph 5 as here under:-

5..... They were found to be having injuries on their bodies. Then they were produced before the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Mettur

for giving treatment to the injuries sustained during the dispersal of the unlawful assembly.

The above said specific and definite statements made in the counter affidavits of the respondents 3, 5 and 6, makes it crystal clear that

admittedly Mr. M. Vetrivel and another advocate, have suffered injuries; but they have stated that those injuries have been caused only due to lathi

charge to disperse the unlawful assembly. It is also in the counter affidavits that there was no complaint whatsoever made by the said Vetrivel while

he was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Mettur, to the effect that they have sustained injuries at the hands of the police

during police custody. We are unable to accept such contention of the respondents for the simple reason that the learned Magistrate has

specifically stated in the remand order that Mr. Vetrivel has made a specific allegation to the effect that he was beaten up and he wanted to have

treatment. It is relevant to incorporate the said Remand Order dated 12.06.2007 of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Mettur, made in Cr.

No. 181/2007 on the file of the Karumalaikudal Police Station which reads as here under:-

REMAND ORDER DATED 12.06.2007

Accused produced. No complaints against the police. Since the A1 alleged to have been beaten up, he wanted to have treatment. Hence, the

Central Prison Authorities are directed to give treatment needed. Remanded until 26.06.2007.

Judicial Magistrate-II,

Mettur,

Dated 12.06.2007

A reading of the above said Remand Order makes it crystal that Mr. Vetrivel who has been arrayed as A1 has made a specific and definite

complaint to the learned Magistrate that he was beaten up. Such being the position, there is no justification for the respondents to contend and

make an averment in the counter affidavits before this Court to the effect that Mr. Vetrivel has not at all made any complaint about the alleged

beating or about the injuries sustained by him. At this juncture, it is relevant to point out that in the counter, respondents 1 to 3, 5 and 6 have not

stated clearly as to at what point of time, Mr. Vetrivel was referred to the hospital, i.e., whether before production of the said Vetrivel before the

learned Magistrate or after the production of Vetrivel before the learned Magistrate. But the truth has come out very clearly through the Remand

Order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 12.06.2007. In the said order, the learned Magistrate has given a specific direction to the Central

Prison Authorities to give treatment needed by Mr. Vetrivel.

Now, we have to look into the other sequence of events taken place after filing of this petition before this Court. It is seen that Mr. Vetrivel

made a representation that he was threatened by the police officials even during his treatment in the hospital which resulted in passing of the order

dated 28.06.2007 by a Division Bench of this Court directing the senior police official to ensure that no threat to be given to the injured who was

admitted in the Government General Hospital, Chennai. Even prior to the passing of such an order on 28.06.2007, this Court passed an order

dated 26.06.2007, this Court passed an order dated 26.06.2007 recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the

effect that ""they expressed further apprehension regarding safety of the persons concerned as well as the safety of the family members"" and this

Court passed the following order:-

....The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also expressed that there is further apprehension regarding the safety of the person concerned

as well as his family members. It goes without saying that, if necessary, protection would be extended to safeguard the safety of the persons

concerned and there should not be any harassment.

In the order dated 28.06.2007, this Court has also given a direction to the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority to visit

the Government General Hospital, Chennai on 29.06.2007 and to record the statement of the injured, Mr. Vetrivel and also report about the

nature and extent of the injuries sustained by him. Accordingly, the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal services Authority, visited the

Government General Hospital, Chennai on 29.06.2007 and recorded the statement of the injured, Mr. Vetrivel who has been treated as an In-

patient in the hospital. The Member Secretary submitted a report dated 03.07.2007 and in the said report, the sequence of events leading to the

occurrence that took place on 11.06.2007 was narrated, apart from the alleged custodial torture suffered by Mr. Vetrivel. It is also stated in the

said report, as per the statement of Mr. Vetrivel that the one Thangaraj, Inspector of Police, threatened him not to tell anything before the learned

Magistrate. However, when the learned Magistrate enquired Vetrivel, he told that he has sustained injuries and he needs treatment. Thereafter, he

was brought to Chennai and was taking treatment in the Government General Hospital, Chennai. In the report, the following injuries have been

noted:-

A healed the heel abrasion on the upper right hand below the shoulder.

A healed contusion before the first wound.

A healed contusion over the right hand joint below the second wound.

A healed contusion on the back of the right forehand.

A healed abrasion below the right wrist.

A healed contusion on the left upper hand.

A healed abrasion on the left forehand.

A healed abrasion on the left wrist.

A healed abrasion on the left middle of the left little finger.

On both cluttal region, there were healed contusion injuries in rows of 10 each side.

On the back of the left thigh about 9 healed contused abrasion.

On the front of the thigh, two such injuries.

On the left front of the thigh two such injuries.

On the back of the right leg around 6 such injuries.

On the back of the left 4 such injuries.

A blood clot on the big toe of the right leg.

A healed abrasion on third toe.

A blood clot on the second toe.

Complain of pain on the left ear.

A reading of the above said report makes it crystal clear that Mr. Vetrivel, admittedly has suffered injuries and he has also suffered an injury on

the vital part of the body as stated by the Member Secretary in his report. The Member Secretary, ultimately stated as here under:-""The injured

Mr. Vetrivel alleged that he was beaten up by the police more particularly by Deputy Superintendent of Police Mr. Ashokkumar, Inspector of

Police Thangaraj, Sub Inspector of Police Selvaraj, Constables Ramasamy, Pacahiyannan and Mathaiyan and others by lathis. The Member

Secretary happened to see the injuries on his private part namely the gluttal region. The markings are line by line though healed, still visible. They

could be caused only by using blend object like lathis [stick]. The similar injuries were found on the back of the thigh and also in the back of the

both legs.

We are of the considered view that the victim, Vetrivel has suffered as many as 18 injuries throughout his body and the same could not have been

caused by a ""lathi charge"" with mild force. Added to the said factor, at the risk of repetition, it is to be reiterated that Mr. Vetrivel has come

forward with the version of the alleged beating by the police officials even at the earliest point of time, viz., while he was produced before the

learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Mettur and he has clearly stated that he was beaten up and suffered injuries and sought for medical treatment in

the hospital and such being the position, it cannot be stated that Mr. Vetrivel has suffered injuries only due to mild lathi charge.

In view of the above said sequence of events leading to the admission of Vetrivel in the hospital, initially at Salem and thereafter, at

Government General Hospital, Chennai and in view of the report of the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai

dated 03.07.2007, we are unable to accept the explanation offered by the respondents through their counter affidavits to the effect that Mr.

Vetrivel was not subjected to any custodial torture and on the other hand, he has sustained injuries only due to a mild lathi charge.

We are also constrained to state that in this matter, the police officials have given a total go-by to the guidelines stipulated by the Hon''ble Apex

Court in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, . It is relevant to refer the principles laid down by the Apex Court in D.K. Basu''s case, which

reads as follows:-

Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the Rules of law. The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22[1]

of the Constitution require to be jealously and scrupulously protected. Court cannot wish away the problem. Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman

or degrading treatment would fall within the inhibition of Article 21 of the Constitution, whether it occurs, during investigation, interrogation or

otherwise. If the functionaries of the Government become law breakers, it is bound to breed contempt for law and would encourage lawlessness

and every man would have the tendency to become law unto himself thereby leading to anarchanism. No civilised nation can permit that to happen.

Does a citizen she off his fundamental right to life, the moment a policeman arrests him? Can the right to life of a citizen be put in abeyance on his

arrest? These questions touch the spinal cord of human rights jurisprudence. The answer, indeed, has to be an emphatic ""No"". The precious right

guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, under trials, detenus and other prisoners in custody, except

according to the procedure established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law.

In the very same decision, the Hon''ble Apex Court had further held that:-

...Section 330 of Penal Code, directly makes torture during interrogation and investigation punishable under the Indian Penal Code. It is however,

inadequate to repair the wrong done to the citizen. Prosecution of the offender is a obligation of the State in case of every crime but the victim of

crime needs to be compensated monetarily also. The Court, where the infringement of the fundamental right is established, therefore, cannot stop

by giving a mere declaration. It must proceed further and give compensatory relief not by way of damages as in a civil action but by way of

compensation under the public law jurisdiction for wrong done, due to breach of public duty by the State of not protection the fundamental right to

life of the citizen. To repair the wrong done and give judicial redress for legal injury is a compulsion of judicial conscience.

In yet another case in Smt. Nilabati Behera alieas Lalita Behera Vs. State of Orissa and others, , the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that the

Court can evolve new tools and mould remedy to provide redressal in case of deprivation of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. It is also held by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the said decision that award of compensation in proceedings for enforcement of

fundamental rights under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India is a remedy available in public law. It is also held in the said decision that

the State has strict duty to ensure that a citizen in the custody of police or prison is not deprived of his right under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India except in accordance with law. The Hon''ble Apex Court has held in the decision as here under:-

15........Convicts, prisoners or under-trials are not denuded of their fundamental rights under Article 21 and it is only such restrictions as are

permitted by law, which can be imposed on the enjoyment of the fundamental rights by such persons. It is an obligation of the State to ensure that

there is no infringement of the indefeasible rights of a citizen to life, except in accordance with law, while the citizen is in its custody.

The public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings. The relief of monetary compensation as exemplary

damages, in proceedings under Article 32 by the Supreme Court or under Article 226 by the High courts, for established infringement of the

indefeasible right guaranteed under Article 21 is a remedy available in public law and is based on the strict liability for contravention of the

guaranteed basic and indefeasible rights of the citizen. The purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizen

that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights. Therefore, when the Court moulds the relief by

granting ''compensation'' in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights. It does so under the

public law by way of penalizing the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect

the fundamental rights of the citizen. The payment of compensation in such cases is not to be understood, as it is generally understood in a civil

action for damages under the private law but in the broader sense of providing relief by an order of making ''monetary amends'' under the public

law for the wrong done due to breach of public duty of not protecting the fundamental rights of the citizen. The compensation is in the nature of

''exemplary damages'' awarded against the wrongdoer for the breach of its public law duty and is independent of the rights available to the

aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in an action based on tort, through a suit instituted in a Court of competent jurisdiction

or/and prosecute the offender under the penal law.

In view of the principles laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the decisions cited supra, it is well settled that award of compensation against

State is the appropriate and effective remedy for redress of an established infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India by a public servant and the said award of compensation by the High Court or the Apex Court is a remedy available in public

law. As far as the case on hand is concerned, as we have already pointed out, the victim, Vetrivel has expressed his anguish, grievance and

sufferings right from the beginning and even at the initial stage of his alleged arrest and production before the learned Magistrate and he has

complained that he was beaten up and as a result, he has sustained injuries. The fact remains that, as already pointed out, he was also admitted in

the hospital at Salem and thereafter, shifted to the Government General Hospital, Chennai and he was treated as an In-patient. Like adding fuel to

the fire, suppressing the real state of affairs, a case was registered against him and ultimately, this Court quashed the proceedings initiated against

him in SC. No. 166/2010 by the order dated 10.01.2011 in Crl. OP. No. 26055/2010, holding that continuation of the proceedings against Mr.

Vetrivel would amount to a clear case of abuse of process of law. As the victim, Mr. Vetrivel, suffered custodial torture at the hands of the police

officials while he was in the police custody, it is the bounden duty of the State to compensate him adequately and reasonably. It is pertinent to note

that in view of the untold hardship, physical sufferings and mental agony, he was not in a position to practice for a long time and as a result, he has

also suffered financially. Considering all these factors, we are of the considered view that directing the State to grant compensation to the victim,

Mr. Vetrivel to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

[a] The State is directed to award compensation to Mr. Vetrivel, the victim in this case to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- [Rupees Three Lakhs only]

within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and

[b] The 2nd respondent herein is hereby directed to take appropriate action in a manner known to law, pursuant to the direction of this Court for

granting the relief of compensation.