Zingthanwon Jajo and Another vs State of Manipur and Others

Ranjan Gogoi, J.—The petitioner No. 1, who is a widow, has instituted the present writ application on the following facts. According to the petitioner, 13.10.1999 at about 10 P.M. when the petitioner was in her house along with her husband late Joseph Jajo, some Manipur Riffles personnel along with the employer of the petitioner''s husband, came to their resident and requested the petitioner''s husband to accompany them for some questioning. According to the petitioner, her husband along with his employer and the Manipur Riffles personnel drove away in a vehicle and thereafter, the whereabout of the petitioner''s husband was not known. As he did not return within a reasonable time, the petitioner frantically made an enquiry with the concerned police station and in the early morning of the next day namely, on 14.10.1999, the tragic news of the death of her husband was reported to her. It is stated by the petitioner that the deadbody of her husband was found at Leirenpat Kongba, Ucheckon, East Imphal with bullet injuries and torture make all over the body with both hands tied over at the back. The petitioner has further averred that at the relevant time, her husband was employed, as a Salesman is Oving Medical Store and was earning Rs. 2000 per month. According to the petitioner, though in respect of the aforesaid incident of the death of her husband FIR Case No. 258 (1) 99 in Singjamei Police Station u/s 203 of the Indian Penal Code was registered, substantial progress has been made in the investigation. The petitioner gave birth to a daughter soon after the death of her husband and at the time of institution of the present writ petition, she was living the life of destitute with no source of income. Having no other alternative, she has instituted the present writ proceeding before this Court for appropriate directions for proper enquiry into the death of her husband, for compensation and for ex-gratia payment. As the relief for ex-gratia payment though stated in the writ petition, was not specifically prayed for, a Misc Application registered as C. Misc Application No. 18/2002 was filed on 18.1.2002 specifically praying for the relief of ex-gratia payment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the event ex-gratia payment is ordered by this Court, the petitioner is willing to abandon the other reliefs claimed in the writ petition.

The State respondents have not filed any affidavit. But an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 5, i.e., the Director General of Police, Manipur. In the aforesaid affidavit, it has been stated by the Respondent No. 5 that the allegation made in the writ petitioner that the husband of the petitioner was picked up and taken away by Manipur Riffles personnel is yet to be ascertained. According to the Respondent No. 5, the facts revealed by the investigation would indicate that the petitioner''s husband was picked up by some persons in olive green uniform with their faces covered with mask. They are yet to be identified and, therefore, on the basis of the facts as revealed till dated, it would not be correct to hold the Manipur Riffles personnel responsible for the death of the petitioner''s husband.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Aleng Vashum in the course of argument has placed before the Court a copy of the order dated 15th October, 1999 issued by the competent authority of the Government of Manipur constituting a Magisterial Enquiry to enquire into, inter alia, the facts and circumstances leading to the death of the husband of the petitioner. As to what has happened to the said Magisterial Enquiry, is not known. Mr. R.K. Jayanta, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has not been able to throw any light in the matter and has sought for further time for instructions. Considering that the matter has been pending before this Court for over two years now and having regard to the subject matter involved this Court considered it inappropriate to accede to the request of the State for further time.

At the very outset, this Court considers it appropriate to place on record that the instant writ application is being an answered only on being limited question of the entitlement or the writ petitioner for ex-gratia payment particularly in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if such payment is made and received by the petitioner, she would forego the other question raised in the writ petition. However, notwithstanding the above submissions the petitioner is granted the liberty to raise the other two issues relating to compensation and enquiry into the circumstances leading to the death of the petitioner''s husband, before an appropriate forum including this Court in the event it becomes necessary for the petitioner to so raise the said issues once again.

The State of Manipur has issued notifications and orders from time to time governing the question of payment of ex-gratia to civilians in the event of death due to unjustified police/security force action or extremists action. The quantum of compensation is fixed in terms of the aforesaid notification. There is hardly any dispute that in terms of the notification dated 6th August, 1998 which currently holds the field in the matter of payment of ex-gratia, the dependants and legal heirs of the civilians killed due to unjustified police action or extremists action are entitled to ex-gratia payment of rupees one lakh.

It may be appropriate at this stage to deal with the meaning of the expression ''ex-gratia''. Ex-gratia payment has been defined in the following terms in Ballentine''s Law Dictionary :-

"Out of grace ; as a matter of grace ; favor, or indulgence and not growing out of a legal-right or duty."

In Black''s Law dictionary, ''ex-gratia'' has been defined as :-

"Out of grace, as a matter of grace favor or indulgence, gratuitous, A term applied to anything accorded as a favor, as distinguished from that which may be demanded ex debito, as a mutter of right."

Ex-gratia, therefore, cannot be demanded as a matter of right. As no legal right to receive ex-gratia payment is vested in any person, the scope of judicial in interference in the matter of such payment would be somewhat limited. However, if policy exists for such ex-gratia payment, the writ power could extend to a scrutiny of the manner of implementation of the policy to ensure that there is no arbitrariness or unfair action on part of the State while implementing the policy. If the State makes such payment to some while denying the same to others for no apparent reason and there is no discernible basis for such discrimination, the judicial verdict will spring into action to interdict such discrimination so as to ensure equal treatment of the citizen.

In the instant case, the silence and slumber of the State authority are clear demonstrations of the fact that the State authorities are unable to appraise themselves of the true and correct facts of the case so as to enable further action to be taken in the matter of payment of ex-gratia to the petitioner. This is evident from the fact that though the Magisterial enquiry was ordered as far as back in the year 1999, no report of enquiry has been placed on record by the State. The affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 5 suggests that there is no conclusive proof that the personnel of Manipur Riffles were involved in the incident but the identity of the culprits have not been stated with any precision. The tragedy which had befallen the petitioner may have been either on account of police action or acts of extremist. In either case, the notification dated 6th August, 1998 would entitle the petitioner to ex-gratia payment. But having regard to the concept of ex-gratia and the legal rights of the petitioner to receive such payment, the satisfaction that, the petitioner is entitled to ex-gratia payment must be reached by the authority in the first instance and not by the Court. As the State authority is yet to record its final decision in the matter, this Court considers it proper to dose the writ proceeding with a direction that within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt, of this order or a certified copy thereof, the competent authority of the State Government will decide entitlement the petitioner for payment of ex-gratia and thereafter take all necessary steps and pass appropriate orders to enable the petitioner to receive ex-gratia payment in terms of the notification dated 6th August. 1998.

The writ petition stands closed in terms of the above directions.