Dismissed

Derha Ram Sahu v. Bhalan Sahu And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC1 Dec 2014WP227/774/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to initiate criminal prosecution by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal against claimants. The Court held that the Tribunal did not commit gross error or cause grave injustice warranting interference under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as the Tribunal's decision was not a fit case for High Court interference.

Derha Ram Sahu Vs Bhalan Sahu And Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HON'BL

¶2

HON'BL H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (227) No. 7-?^ OF 2014

¶3

PETITIONER

¶4

(Respondent No.l)

¶5

^
->'
^
..-••"~.^'!y ..s-
. ^^:....--" y
e^
^
^

¶6

Derha Rara Sahu son of Dhan 51 l.'.,':^ Singh Sahu, aged about^{•!^;x;ears,^-} ]3. 11 • 1< R/o. Village Nawagaon, Post Mangata, P.S. Somani, Tahsil Rajnandgaon, Civil and Revenue District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS

(Clainiants)

1.
^"

Bhalan Sahu, son of MohanSahu, aged about 47 years,

¶12

¶13

Rewa Ram Sahu, son of Bhalan Sahu, aged about 25 years,

¶14

¶15

¶16

Bhagwat Sahu, son of Bhalan iu, aged about 23 years,

¶17

¶18

Gehd Ldl Sahu, son of Bhalan Sahu, aged about 20 years,

¶19

/'•
Res. No.2

¶20

¶21

All are R/o. Village Nawagaon, Post Mangata, P.S. Somani, Tahsil Rajnandgaon, Civil and Revenue District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶22

Chandra Bhushan Sahu, son of Derha Ram Sahu, aged about 28 years, R/o. Nawagaon, Post

¶23

Mangata, P.S. Somani, Tahsil Rajnandgaon, Civil and Revenue District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), Res. No.3. 6. National Insurance Company Limited, Registered and Head Office-3, Middle Tone, Street Kolkata-700071, Res. No.4 7. Rewati Bai Sahu wife of Naresh Kumar Sahu , a^ed not la-Lown, R/o. ^- . ^s»»^^^^^.,^^,». ^^^ Village Kaldabari, P. S. Ghumka, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), Res. No.5 8. Mungiya Bai Sahu, wife of late Bharat Lal Sahu, agcd now-lsiewa, -—t's't1''^ R/o. Bharregaon, P.S. Lalbag, Tahsil and Dista-ict Rajnandgaon (C.G.),

¶24

WRIT PETITION UNDER_ARTICLE 836/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶25

-1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As mentioned in the cause title. /'• IS.A ^PARTICVLARS QF THE RESPONDENTS:. -,^ As mentioned in the cause title.

¶26

3^ PARTIGULARS OF THE ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE PETITION IS BEING _MADE & 8UBJECT MATTER IN BRIEF :-

3"1

•<.. ^v

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶32

W.P^(227) No. 774 of 2014

¶33

PETITIONER Derha Ram Sahu

¶34

Versus

¶35

RESPONDENTS Bhalan Sahu and others

¶36

Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, counsel for the petitioner.

¶37

SINGLE BENCH : HONLBLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMARMISHRA, J. ORAL ORDER (01/12/2014)

¶38

TEUp'^li^eblWcident Claims TnbBn!^]pa?|tejected petitioner's ap^V(^lBF?' for initiating prosecution against "8iyi|?f|lel^[mants. The gg^gp&tion was moved qn tp^'§%uriql that the claimants';"W8ri|§ le false Igissertion that they ha4?r%8lftS|tM^9hd no ' female child wasBiBver born ^ i ''u?ri:K&rvSS!fiiy to them, however, as a''Ii'ii^:5ifi3^I,'respondent No. 7 & 8 herein, the of the claimaj'r isequently impleaded in the claim

¶39

proceeding.

¶40

While rejecting lt)fit!.a^J%g^ln,^e learned Tribunal has observed that proceedings seeki'R!^,c^^Sfl^|||iii on account of motor accident is a welfare legislation and^^g gj^ents of social Justice, therefore, the parties being of rural background and since they have explained that their assertion that they have no daughters was made because they understood that they are required to state about their unmarried daughters whereas Rewati Baj and l\4,ungiya Bai were already married and are residing in a differentvillage,therefye, no criminal proceeding need be initiated. r

¶41

Applying its earlier decisions in the matters of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander RaJ and Others (2003) 6 SCC 675 and Shalini Shyam Shettyand Anotlier Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329, the Supreme Court in the matter ofSameer Suresh Gupta through PA Holder Vs. Rahul Kumar Agarwal (2013) 9 SCC 374 has held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of theirjurisdiction. When.a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not

¶42

<l^

¶43

^ :"N. "<br>'^ 'kt^y^l ^ _...;•'
~'fiaaSsy'

¶44

-^-

¶45

have or has failed to exercise a Jurisdiction which it does have or the Jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisoryjurisdiction. It has also been held that supervisoryjurisdiction or certiorari jurisdiction is not available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied: (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignoranceor utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. The powerto issue,,aaW|jj,[|Iii^gBiraigandl the supervisoryjurisdiction are to be ex6||||i:sfcKB|^j^^BSfl*orfyBi|'|B|g^riat!e cases where the judicia!i,c^ps®enceofthe High Court dictates iFtoflgfplt a gross failure '°ei5'<K»r>Sa. ,|:jfi||spieor grave injustice shoyld occasion.

¶46

'iS. It usually hapR$rNii|?REPie^88N91before*'<^lAKSA8>i"fc~ ' the Court thaWne or the ; other party makes sojng;^g^(|^ which is ultimately found to be incd'rrect or false, howev^3|^t'^(^cessary in each and everycase to initiate prosecution of tjiel^^feif. Considering the parametersfor exercising Jurisdiction Uf^^^i^S^7 of the Constitution of India, this ^fu^ 7/^^.^ ^ Th Court is of the consid@i!e(ti3Bfl')Sa1,"HS the present is not a fit case for 'WSSSSSSSy' interference.

¶47

<-|t?y<-lq uPT^

¶48

Thewrit petition isaccordingly dismissed.

¶49

¶50

^',\»(a
^a<
^^
?t^a^^e

¶51

^..,

Derha Ram Sahu v. Bhalan Sahu And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Derha Ram Sahu v. Bhalan Sahu And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S R.G.Fuels Vs the State of M.P.and Ors.

Smt. Sundar Devi and Ors. Vs Bhanjan Singh and Ors.

Bishram Das Sahu and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Lekhram Nayak Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Jai Prakash Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Anwar Ali Vs Regional Transport Authority Bilaspur