UNION OF INDIA Vs. N. LEIYE
HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR; CJ.:-- -
(1.) This review petition has been filed to review the order dated 22.12.2017 passed in W.P(C) No.322 of 2008. The said writ petition was allowed inter alia on a claim for compensation in an alleged case of fake encounter which happened on 18.7.1993 alleging that the personnel of Assam Rifles were involved. After considering the factual matrix of the case and after hearing Mr. S.Samarjeet, learend CGC who, on instruction submitted a letter dated 12.12.2017 based on which, the following order dated 22.12.2017 was passed as under:-
"Mr. S.Samarjeet, learned CGC has made such submission on the basis of instruction received by him from the office of the HQ IGAR (South) dated 12.12.2017 under No.1571/322 of 2008/Law/2017/594, a copy of the said instruction is placed on record.
Ms. Bisheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner has agreed to accept the compensation amount of Rs. 5 (five) lakhs. However, as to whether the petitioner 's son was killed in an ambush by the Assam Rifles personnel in a fake encounter or not ought to be left to be decided by the competent authority as and when any such enquiry takes place in accordance with law.
In view of the above submissions, the present petition stands disposed of with the direction to the Assam Rifles to pay a sum of Rs.5 (five) lakhs to the petitioner, now represented by legal heir, namely, N. Mayonmi, as allowed by this Court in MC W.P. (C). No. 91 of 2017, without making any observation to the actual cause of death of the petitioner 's son and those responsible for the same, which will be subject to any finding arrived at by the competent authority in accordance with law.
The aforesaid amount of compensation shall be paid within a period of 3 (three) months from today. If the respondents have any difficulty in paying within the aforesaid time period, they may approach this Court. "
(2.) The review petition has been filed primarily on the ground that the letter issued by the authority dated 11.12.2017 of HQ 3 Corps, C/o 99 APO and 12.12.2017 by HQ IGAR (South) did not have the authority to issue such letters to the Court. Therefore, the order should be reviewed.
(3.) We have heard Mr. S.Samarjeet, learned CGC for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Thoi Thoi Meitei, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr.R.K.Umakanta, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.