Patna High CourtL.P.A/475/2017withdrawn

Sushil Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-05-17Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh,The Chief Justice2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.475 of 2017 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12424 of 2014 =========================================================== Sushil Kumar Singh, S/o Late Ayodhi Prasad, Resident of Village + Post Office Sadhua, P.S. Rangra Chowk, District Bhagalpur. .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Special Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat Building, Patna.

5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, (Human Rights), Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat Building, Patna.

6. The Superintendent of Police, Samastipur.

7. The Railways Superintendent of Police, Jamalpur. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant : Mr. Ambuj Nayan Chaubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG-3 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 17-05-2017 In the matter of implementing the recommendation made by the National Human Rights Commission and recovering the compensation paid to the victim from the petitioner, the learned Writ Court finding that before recovery of the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the petitioner, the State Government has not heard the petitioner, relegated the matter back to the State Government for reconsideration

Patna High Court LPA No.475 of 2017 dt.17-05-2017 2/2 and in our considered view the learned Writ Court has not committed any error in doing so.

Contention of the petitioner that the National Human Rights Commission should have heard him and thereafter action should have taken is without any substance as the National Human Rights Commission has imposed the liability on the State Government and the State Government under law is entitled to recover the loss caused to the State from the petitioner.

That being so, merely because National Human Rights Commission did not hear the petitioner before imposing the liability on the State Government, we see no reason to make any indulgence into the matter. The appeal stands dismissed. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) Narendra/- AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 24.05.2017 Transmission Date