JAGDISH RAJ Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Jean Jacques Rousseau the famous French Philosopher tells us of a 'state of nature' where all men were free and enjoyed full powers to manage their affairs. This 'state of nature' was found to be unregulated. With a view to regulate this unregulated state of affairs. We are told that there was the 'Contract Social' whereby individuals agreed to surrender their sovereignty in favour of the 'General Will'. This 'General Will' was to exercise control over all individuals. Each of the individual was to surrender his sovereignty in favour of the 'General Will'. 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 Liberty'. It was this law which was to re-establish orderly state of affairs among all individuals. The petitioners in these writ petitions are looking to this 'Sovereign' 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 'life' 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 soul 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 compensate.This order shall deal with 3 petitions. Facts in each of them be noticed.
(3.) Facts in writ petition 121 of 1996 are as under :It is stated that on 11-5-93 city of Kishtwar 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 badly 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 annexures. 'A' as there was failure on the part of respondent-State to compensate the petitioner, he has approached this Court.Petition was admitted on 4-10-96 Objections have been preferred.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.