JAGDESH RAJ Vs. STATE OF J&K
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
STATE OF JANDK
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) JEAN Jacques Rousseau the famous french Philosopher tells us of a State of natureâ„¢ where all men were free and enjoyed full powers to
manage their affairs. This State of natureâ„¢ was found to be
unregulated. With a view to regulate this unregulated state of affairs,
we are told that there was the contract socialâ„¢ whereby individuals
agreed to surrender their sovereignty in favour of the General willâ„¢.
This General willâ„¢ was to exercise control over all individuals. Each
of the individual was to surrender his sovereignty in favour of the
General willâ„¢. It was this authority which -was supposed to safeguard
the life, liberty and property of the individuals. It was this authority
which was to frame the laws. It is to the law alone as per Rousseau men
owe Justice and Libertyâ„¢. It was this law which was to re -establish
orderly state of affaris among all individuals. The petitioners in these
writ petitions are looking to this sovereignâ„¢ for protection of their
life, liberty and property.
(2.) WHEN the people of this Republic collected together to give themselves a constitution they also decided that the citizens of this
Republic shall not be deprived of their life or personal liberty. It is
submitted that the term lifeâ„¢ includes reputation and privacy
shelter, environment and health so that it is possible to keep body and
soul together. It is this concept of keeping body and should together
which the petitioners seek to enforce, as per the petitioners the State
is bound to protect them and their property and if it fails then it must
This order shall deal with 3 petitions. Facts in each of them be noticed. Facts in writ petition 121 of 1996 are as under: -
(3.) IT is stated that on 11.05.93 city of Kishtiwar was put under curfew. This curfew lasted for three days. After curfew when the
petitioner visited his business premises he found that his shop was
badely damaged. Articles lying therein were either stolen or damaged.
Similar damage was caused to other shops. Loss is said to be to the
extent of Rs. 3.50 Lacs. Petitioner further submits he approached
respondent authorities. Details of loss were submitted. These are
indicated in the annexures. It is further submitted that the fact the
petitioner did suffer loss is admitted in annexure A as there was
failure on the part of respondent State to compensate the petitioner, he
has approached this court.
Petition was admitted on 04.10.96. Objections have been preferred.
It is submitted that as per the existing rules no exgratia payment is permissible where loss is to immovable property. It is stated
that some relief is being granted to fire victim but no policy exist so
far as this type of loss is concerned.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.