{"id":142109,"date":"2006-04-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-naidu-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-april-2006"},"modified":"2015-12-17T00:39:29","modified_gmt":"2015-12-16T19:09:29","slug":"lakshmana-naidu-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-naidu-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"Lakshmana Naidu (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Lakshmana Naidu (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 April, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED:  28\/04\/2006  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.  JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAM         \n\nW.P.  No.1602 of 1999 \n to\n W.P. No.1604 of 1999 \n\n\n W.P.No.1602 of 1999 \n\n1. Lakshmana Naidu (deceased)  \n 2. Varadammal \n    (Petitioner No.2 brought as\n     Legal representative\n     of the deceased Bale @ Subramanim \n     as  per order of this\n     Court dt.27.4.2006)                  Petitioner\n\n W.P.No.1603 of 1999 \n\n 1. Angammal (deceased)  \n 2. Chinnaponnu \n 3. Minor. Ayyammal (now attained majority)\n 4. Minor. Chinnamani\n 5. Villaiammal\n    (Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are brought\n     as legal heirs of\n     the deceased Rajamanickam \n     as per order\n     of this Court dt 27.4.2006)        ... Petitioner\n\n W.P.No.1604 of 1999 \n\n 1. Muthusamy (deceased)  \n 2. Samboornam  \n    (Petitioner No.2 brought as\n     Legal Representative of the\n     deceased petitioner, Muthusamy,\n     as per order\n     of this Court dated 27.4.2006)     ... Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The State of Tamil Nadu\n    Rep. by the Secretary to Government\n    Department of Home Affairs,\n    Fort. St. George, Chennai - 600 009.\n\n\n2. The Secretary to Government \n    Department of Forests,\n    Government of Tamilnadu\n    Fort. St. George,\n    Chennai - 600 009.                     Respondents in all<\/pre>\n
                                           the above
\n                                           Writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
        Prayer :  Petitions filed under Article 226  of  the  Constitution  of
\nIndia Praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus as stated therein.\n<\/p>\n
For Petitioners        :  Mr.  D.Bharatha Chakravarthy\n\nFor Respondents        :  Mr.  S.Gomathy Nayagam, S.G.P. \n\n:COMMON ORDER      \n<\/pre>\n
        In all the above three writ petitions, the legal heirs of the deceased
\nBale @  Subramaniam  (W.P.   No.1602 of 1999), Jayaraman (W.P.No.1603 of 1999)
\nand Rajamanickam (W.P.No.  1604 of 1999) are the petitioners respectively  and
\nthey  have  prayed  for  the  issuance  of  a  writ  of mandamus directing the
\nrespondents to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs each as compensation for the  loss  and
\nsuffering  caused  by  the  officials of the second respondent by the torture,
\nmurder and burning of the said three deceased persons.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  In all the three cases, the facts are  one  and  the  same.    The
\naverments  in  the respective affidavits filed in the above writ petitions are
\nalmost identical.  The necessary facts for the disposal of the writ  petitions
\nare set out below:\n<\/p>\n
        i)  The  petitioners  in  the  above  writ  petitions are residents of
\nThandanur Village, Attur Taluk, Salem  district;  forest  areas  surround  the
\nvillage.   It  is  the  case  of  the  petitioners that forest officials often
\ninsisted Bale @ Subramaniam, Jayaraman and Rajamanickam to help them in  their
\nillegal activities.  But they refused to oblige and hence the forest officials
\ndemanded money  and threatened to implicate them in Sandal theft cases.  While
\nso, on 29.10.1990, the above said three persons left their house stating  that
\nthey  are  going  to  Attur  for  purchasing  cooking utensils; but they never
\nreturned back.  The petitioners, with the assistance of their  family  members
\nand  relatives,  met  forest  and police officials, but the whereabouts of the
\nsaid three persons were not known.  After 10 days the  petitioners  found  the
\nburnt remains  of  the said three persons.  A criminal case was registered and
\nafter  investigation  it  was  found  that  12  forest  officials  of  various
\ndesignation namely, (1) Nalandahkrishnamoorthy, (2) Lazar, (3) Palanivelu, (4)
\nRaju,  (5)  Kandasamy,  (6) Mannar Mannan, (7) Krishnamoorthy, (8) Lakshmanan,
\n(9) Perumal, (10) Govindan, (11) Murugesan and (12) Chinnathambi, who were the
\naccused 1 to 12 in S.C.No.209 of 1994 on the file of  the  Principal  Sessions
\nCourt, Salem did the most heinous crime.\n<\/p>\n
        ii)  It  is  the  case  of  the  petitioners that on completion of the
\ninvestigation and filing  of  charge  sheets  against  the  abovesaid  accused
\npersons it came to the light that on 29.10.1990 at about 6.30 pm, Accused 1 to
\n4  mentioned  above,  took Bale @ Subramaniam, Jayaraman and Rajamanickam into
\ncustody in the guise of interrogation regarding sandalwood case and took  them
\nto Attur  Range Forest Office.  There, Accused 1 and 4 to 9 beat all the three
\nof them with lathies, sticks and hands and due to  grievous  injuries  Bale  @
\nSubramaniam succumbed to death.\n<\/p>\n
        iii)  Thereafter,  the  said  accused  persons took the body of Bale @
\nSubramaniam in the Forest Department Jeep bearing registration  No.TNT  8  997
\ninto   the  Thakarai  Reserve  Forest  situated  within  the  jurisdiction  of
\nChinnasalem Police Station in South Arcot District and burnt him.  Thereafter,
\nthe above said accused officials and particularly Accused 3, 4, 6, 9 and 12 on
\n30.10.1990, took Rajamanickam and Jayaraman to the Sana Mavoo  Reserve  Forest
\nsituated  within  the  jurisdiction  of  Hosur  Police  Station  in Dharmapuri
\nDistrict  by  the  Forest  Department  Jeep  of  Attur  Range  Forest  Office.
\nThereafter,  on  31.10.1990  at about 2.30 am, in the “Pullu Plot” at the Sana
\nMavoo Reserve  Forest,  the  Accused  3,  4  and  6  held  the  hands  of  the
\nRajamanickam  and  the  Accused  12  caught hold of the legs and the Accused 6
\nstrangulated  him  with  his  hands  and  also  Accused  4  and  6  forcefully
\nadministered poison mixed in brandy and murdered him and all of them burnt his
\nbody.   On  the  same  day at 3.30 am, Jayaraman was taken by the accused to a
\nplace called Pathakottai in the same Sana  Mavoo  Reserve  Forest  and  there,
\nAccused  3 held his legs and Accused 4, 6 and 9 forcefully administered poison
\nmixed in brandy and murdered and burnt him.\n<\/p>\n
        iv) All the above said accused were tried in S.C.No.200 of 1994 by the
\nLearned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem and a judgment dated 06.09  .1995  was
\nrendered  therein  convicting Accused 1 to 4, 6 and 9 under various counts for
\nan offence under Section 302 IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  In W.P.No.1602 of 1999, the petitioners are the father and  mother
\nof the deceased Bale @ Subramaniam and according to the petitioners their son,
\nat  the time of death, was aged about 25 years and was earning Rs.60\/- per day
\nas an agricultural coolie.  In W.P.No.1603 of 199 9, the petitioners  are  the
\nmother,  two  wives  and  two minor daughters of the deceased Rajamanickam and
\naccording to the petitioners, at the time of death the deceased was aged about
\n31 years and was earning Rs.60\/- per  day  as  an  agricultural  coolie.    In
\nW.P.No.1604 of 1999, the petitioners are the father and mother of the deceased
\nJayaraman  and according to the petitioners their son at the time of death was
\naged about 27 years and was earning Rs.60\/- per day as an agricultural coolie.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  The common averments and allegations of the petitioners  are  that
\nthe respective deceased persons were breadwinners of their respective families
\nand  because of the brutal murder committed by the above said accused persons,
\nthe petitioners underwent untold mental agony and suffering,  extreme  poverty
\nand hunger  and they could not even see the faces of the deceased.  The mental
\nagony suffered by the petitioners may  not  be  described  in  words  and  the
\npetitioners,  by  the death of above said three persons, lost their respective
\nbreadwinners of their families and they have been deprived of the  support  of
\nthe deceased persons.  The petitioners sent various representations to various
\nofficials   and   finally  sent  a  representation  dated  15.09.1997  to  the
\nrespondents.  As there was no positive response, the above writ petitions have
\nbeen filed claiming compensation for the death of the above said persons.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  According to the petitioners, the respondents are strictly  liable
\nto  pay  compensation for the acts done by the above said Accused persons, who
\nwere officials of the Forest Department, as they have violated the fundamental
\nrights of the petitioners as well as the deceased persons.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  In all the above writ petitions, a  sum  of  Rs.5  lakhs  each  is
\nclaimed as  compensation.    A  counter  affidavit has been filed by the first
\nrespondent in W.P.No.1604 of 1999 adopting the counter affidavit filed by  the
\nsecond respondent.    The  original copy of the counter affidavit filed by the
\nsecond respondent is not available in the Court bundle.  However, a xerox copy
\nof the same was furnished by Mr.S.Gomathi Nayagam, Special Government Pleader.
\nNo separate counter affidavit seems to have been  filed  in  W.P.Nos.1602  and
\n1603 of  1999.    In  the  counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.1604 of 1999, the
\nregistration of the criminal case against the above said accused  persons  and
\nthe  judgment  rendered in S.C.No.200 of 1994 by the Principal Sessions Judge,
\nSalem are not disputed but infact admitted.   It  is  stated  in  the  counter
\naffidavit  that  the  Sessions  Court,  Salem by its judgment dated 06.09.1995
\nconvicted accused 1 and 2 and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous  Imprisonment
\nfor  two  years, convicted accused 3, 4, 6 and 9 and sentenced them to undergo
\nLife Imprisonment and acquitted accused 5, 7, 8 , 10 and 12.   It  is  further
\nstated  in the counter affidavit that disciplinary proceedings under the Tamil
\nNadu Civil Services (Discipline  and  Appeal)  Rules  were  initiated  by  the
\nDistrict  Forest  Officer  against G.Nalandah Krishnamoorthy, Office Assistant
\nand S.Lazar, Forest Guard and an exparte  order  of  removal  of  service  was
\npassed against G.   Nalandah Krishnamoorthy.  But pursuant to the order passed
\nby the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, he was reinstated in service and as
\nfar as S.Lazar was concerned, the Tamil Nadu  Administrative  Tribunal  stayed
\nall further  proceedings  and  he  is in service.  As per the averments in the
\ncounter affidavit, the following officials were dismissed from service namely,
\nR.Palanivel  (Forest  Watcher),  R.Raju   (Forest   Watcher),   T.Mannarmannan
\n(Forester) and  P.Perumal  (Jeep Driver).  It is further stated in the counter
\naffidavit   that   P.Kandasamy    (Ranger),    S.Krishnamoorthy    (Forester),
\nK.Chinnathambi (Forest  Guard), A.  Lakshmanan (Forest Watcher) are continuing
\nin service.  It is relevant to point out that various averments  contained  in
\nthe  affidavits  filed  in the above said three writ petitions relating to the
\nage, daily income and the relationship of the petitioners  to  the  respective
\ndeceased have  not  been  specifically  denied.  It is relevant to extract the
\nlast paragraph of the counter affidavit which reads as follows:
\n“In the above said circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Hon  ‘  ble
\nCourt may be pleased to pass suitable orders as may be necessary, deem fit and
\nproper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice”.
\nIt  is  not  even  stated  in the counter affidavit that the claim made by the
\npetitioners is excessive.  Similarly, the liability of the respondents is  not
\ndisputed.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  Heard both.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   The learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgment
\nrendered by a Division  Bench  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of  K.Kabali  @
\nKabalesswaran Vs.    State  of Tamil Nadu and Others in Writ Appeal No.5 87 of
\n2001 and reported in 2006(2) TNLJ 33 submitted that  when  the  averments  and
\nallegations  contained  in the affidavit on material particulars have not been
\ndenied by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed by them and when  the
\nage,  daily income and the relationship of the petitioners to the deceased are
\nnot denied and the quantum of compensation claimed is also  not  disputed  and
\nthe  very  liability  of  the respondents is not disputed, the petitioners are
\nentitled for compensation as claimed by them and the writ petitions have to be
\nallowed.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  The learned Special Government Pleader fairly  submitted  that  in
\nview of the fact that the concerned Accused who were responsible for the death
\nof  the  above  said  three persons have been convicted by the Sessions Court,
\nSalem by its judgment dated 06.09.1995 rendered in S.  C.No.200  of  1994  and
\nthe  accused  happen  to  be  officials  of  the Government of Tamil Nadu, the
\npetitioners are entitled for a reasonable compensation.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  Taking into consideration the above said submissions made by  the
\ncounsel  on either side, it has to be held that when there is no dispute as to
\nthe cause of the death of the above said three persons and when  the  Sessions
\nCourt  Salem  has convicted the concerned Accused who were responsible for the
\ndeath of the above said three persons, the theory of strict liability  applies
\nto the  facts  of  this case.  In the above said decision, the Division Bench,
\nafter referring to number of judgments of the  Apex  Court  as  well  as  this
\nCourt, has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “The above decisions make it clear that where public functionaries are
\ninvolved and the matter relates to the violation of fundamental rights or  the
\nenforcement of public duties, the aggrieved person can very well approach this
\nCourt  for  necessary  relief, including compensation under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India”.\n<\/p>\n
        And in that case the Honourable Division Bench awarded a  compensation
\nof  Rs.3 lakhs taking into account of the fact that already a sum of Rs.1 lakh
\nhad been paid to the petitioners therein.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  The Honourable Supreme Court of India in the decision rendered in
\nNilabati Behara Vs.    State  of  Orissa  reported  in  1993 (2) S.C.C.  746 ,
\nawarded compensation to the father of the person, whose death was caused while
\nin police custody.  The compensation was ordered in that  case  as  the  Court
\nreached the conclusion that the death of the person was caused while in police
\ncustody.   While considering the question as to the liability of the State for
\npayment of compensation for custodial death, the Court held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “(A) claim in public law for compensation for contravention  of  human
\nrights  and fundamental freedoms, the protection of which is guaranteed in the
\nConstitution, is an acknowledged remedy for enforcement and protection of such
\nrights, and such a claim based on strict liability  made  by  resorting  to  a
\nconstitutional  remedy  provided for the enforcement of a fundamental right is
\n‘distinct from, and in addition to, the remedy in private law for damages  for
\nthe tort resulting from the contravention of the fundamental right.”
\nThe Court further observed that:  (S.C.C.  pp.  762 – 63, para 17)<\/p>\n
        “The  defence  of  sovereign immunity being inapplicable, and alien to
\nthe concept of guarantee of fundamental rights, there can be  no  question  of
\nsuch a  defence  being  available  in  the  constitutional remedy.  It is this
\nprinciple which justifies award of monetary compensation for contravention  of
\nfundamental  rights  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution,  when that is the only
\npracticable mode of redress available for the contravention made by the  State
\nor  its servants in the purported exercise of their powers, and enforcement of
\nthe fundamental right is claimed by resort to the remedy in public  law  under
\nthe Constitution by recourse to Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution”.\n<\/p>\n
        The above said judgment of the Honourable Supreme court of India makes
\nit  clear that for the violation of the fundamental rights of a citizen by the
\nState or its servants, in the purported exercise of their powers, the affected
\ncitizen can resort to the remedy in public law by taking recourse  to  Article
\n226 of  the  Constitution  of India.  The Apex Court has also observed in that
\ndecision that the compensation is in the nature of “exemplary damages” awarded
\nagainst the wrongdoer for the breach of its public law duty and is independent
\nof the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the
\nprivate law in an action based on tort, through a suit instituted in  a  Court
\nof  competent  jurisdiction or\/and prosecute the offender under the penal law.
\nTherefore, it is settled law that compensation can be awarded for violation of
\nfundamental rights in public law domain.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  The High Court, being protector of Civi liberties of the citizen,
\nhas  not  only  the  power  and  jurisdiction, but also an obligation to grant
\nrelief in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of  the  Constitution
\nto the victim or the heir of the victim whose fundamental rights under Article
\n21  of  the  Constitution  of  India  are  established to have been flagrantly
\ninfringed by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its  officers
\nto  the  fundamental  rights  of the citizen, notwithstanding the right of the
\ncitizen to the remedy by way of a civil suit or  criminal  proceedings.    The
\nState,  of  course  has the right to be indemnified by and take such action as
\nmay be available to it against the wrongdoer in accordance  with  law  through
\nappropriate proceedings.  The relief in exercise of power under Article 226 of
\nthe  Constitution  of India would be granted once it is established that there
\nhas been infringement of the fundamental rights of the citizen.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  The Honourable Supreme Court of India in the decision rendered in
\nMalkiat Singh Vs.  State of U.P.  reported in 1998 (9) S.C.C.  351, awarded  a
\ncompensation  of  Rs.5  lakhs to the father of the person who was killed in an
\nalleged encounter with  police.    In  the  case  of  R.    Dhanalakshmi   Vs.
\nGovernment of Tamilnadu reported in 2004 W.L.R.  346, the learned single Judge
\nof  this  Court fixed a compensation of Rs.9 lakhs in respect of the custodial
\ndeath taking note of age, income of the  deceased,  family  circumstances  and
\ndependency  etc,  by  applying  the  multiplier  as  provided  under the Motor
\nVehicles Act.  This Court is of the view that the same  principle  adopted  in
\n2004 W.L.R.  346 can be adopted to fix the compensation that is payable to the
\npetitioners in the above writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
        14.   (i)  In  W.P.No.1602  of  1999,  the  age of the deceased Bale @
\nSubramaniam was 25 years at the time of death; his income  per  day  was  Rs.6
\n0\/-;  the  loss  of  income  per  year will be Rs.21,600\/- and if the standard
\n1\/3-rd deduction is made, the loss of income will be Rs.14,400\/-, if  the  age
\nof the deceased i.e.  25 years is taken into account, as per the provisions of
\nthe  Motor  Vehicles  Act,  the  multiplier  to  be adopted will be 18 and the
\ncompensation that could be arrived at is Rs.2 ,59,200\/-; towards loss of  love
\nand  affection a sum of Rs.25,000\/- could be easily awarded and towards mental
\nagony and suffering of the petitioners a sum of Rs.25,000\/-  could  be  fixed;
\nthe  death  was  caused  on  29.10.1990,  if  interest at 9% is awarded on the
\ncompensation amount on the sum of Rs.3,09,200\/- up-to-date, it  will  come  to
\napproximately Rs.7,26,620\/-.\n<\/p>\n
        (ii) In W.P.No.1603 of 1999, the age of the deceased Rajamanickam  was
\n31  years  at  the  time of death; his income per day was Rs.60\/-; the loss of
\nincome per year will be Rs.21,600\/- and if the standard  1\/3-rd  deduction  is
\nmade  the  loss of income will be Rs.14,400\/-, if the age of the deceased i.e.
\n31 years is taken into account, as per the provisions of  the  Motor  Vehicles
\nAct,  the  multiplier to be adopted will be 17 and the compensation that could
\nbe arrived at is Rs.2,44,800\/-; towards loss of love and affection  a  sum  of
\nRs.25,000\/-  could be easily awarded and towards mental agony and suffering of
\nthe petitioners a sum of Rs.25,000\/- could be fixed; the death was  caused  on
\n29.1  0.1990,  if  interest at 9% is awarded on the compensation amount on the
\nsum of Rs.2,94,800\/- up-to-date, it will come to approximately Rs.7 ,06,046\/-.\n<\/p>\n
        (iii) In W.P.No.1604 of 1999, the age of the deceased Jayaraman was 27
\nyears at the time of death; his income per day was Rs.60\/-; the loss of income
\nper year will be Rs.21,600\/- and if the standard 1\/3rd deduction is  made  the
\nloss of  income will be Rs.14,400\/-, if the age of the deceased i.e.  27 years
\nis taken into account, as per the provisions of the Motor  Vehicles  Act,  the
\nmultiplier to be adopted will be 18 and the compensation that could be arrived
\nat   is   Rs.2,59,200\/-;   towards  loss  of  love  and  affection  a  sum  of
\nRs.25,000\/could be easily awarded and towards mental agony  and  suffering  of
\nthe  petitioners  a sum of Rs.25,000\/- could be fixed; the death was caused on
\n29.10 .1990, if interest at 9% is awarded on the compensation  amount  on  the
\nsum of Rs.3,09,200\/- up-to-date, it will come to approximately Rs.7,26,620\/.\n<\/p>\n
        15.   As calculated above, the compensation payable comes to more than
\nRs.5 lakhs and as the petitioners themselves have claimed only Rs.5  lakhs  as
\ncompensation  in  each  of  the writ petitions, this Court is of the view that
\nconsidering  the  family  circumstances,  poverty  driven  condition  of   the
\npetitioners,  etc.,  ends  of justice would be met if the respondents State is
\ndirected to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the  petitioners,  [(i)  Varadammal  in
\nW.P.No.1602 of  1999  (ii) Chinnaponnu, Minor.Ayyammal, Minor.  Chinnamani and
\nVillaiammal in W.P.No.1603 of 199 9 and (iii)  Samboornam  in  W.P.No.1604  of
\n1999],  in  each of the writ petitions by way of compensation for the death of
\nBale @ Subramaniam, Rajamanickam and Jayaraman, respectively.  The state shall
\npay these amounts within a period of eight weeks from the date of  receipt  of
\ncopy of this order.  The State Government is directed to pay the sum of Rs.1.5
\nlakhs to the petitioners in the following manner:-\n<\/p>\n
        (i) Varadammal in W.P.No.1602 of 1999,<\/p>\n
        (ii)  (a)  Rs.25,000\/- to Chinnaponnu (Second petitioner), (b) Rs.50,0
\n00\/- to Minor Ayyammal, (Third petitioner)  through  her  mother  and  natural
\nguardian  Chinnaponnu,  the second petitioner herein (c) Rs.50,000 \/- to Minor
\nChinnamani  (fourth  petitioner)  through  her  mother  and  natural  guardian
\nChinnaponnu,  the second petitioner herein and (d) Rs.25 ,000\/- to Villaiammal
\n(fifth petitioner) in W.P.No.1603 of 1999 and<\/p>\n
        (iii) Samboornam (second petitioner) in W.P.No.1604 of 1999
\nfrom out of the said amount of Rs.5 lakhs, and invest the  balance  amount  of
\nRs.3.5  lakhs  in  each  of the writ petitions within the said period of eight
\nweeks in the following names,<\/p>\n
        (i) Varadammal in W.P.No.1602 of 1999,<\/p>\n
        (ii) (a)  Chinnaponnu  (Second  petitioner)  Rs.58,000\/-,  (b)  Minor.
\nAyyammal  (Third  petitioner)  Rs.1,17,000\/-  through  her  mother and natural
\nguardian Chinnaponnu (the  second  petitioner  herein)  (c)  Minor  Chinnamani
\n(fourth  petitioner)  Rs.1,17,000\/-  through  her  mother and natural guardian
\nChinnaponnu  (the  second  petitioner  herein)  and  (d)  Villaiammal   (fifth
\npetitioner) Rs.58,000\/- in W.P.No.1603 of 1999 and<\/p>\n
        (iii) Samboornam in W.P.No.1604 of 1999
\nas  Fixed  Deposits  initially  for a period of three years with the Tamilnadu
\nPower Finance Corporation.  It is made clear that the  respective  petitioners
\nwould  be  entitled  to receive interest accrued on such deposit once in three
\nmonths.  After expiry of the  said  period  of  three  years,  the  respective
\npetitioners  in  each  of  the  writ  petitions  are permitted to withdraw the
\namount.\n<\/p>\n
        16.  Mr.    Gomathinayagam,  Special Government Pleader submitted that
\nliberty may be given to the State Government to  proceed  against  the  actual
\nculprits  viz.,  Accused 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 9 in S.C.No.200 of 1994 on the file
\nof the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem and to recover the compensation  amount
\npaid to  the  petitioners  in  the above writ petitions.  Considering the said
\nsubmission and the fact that the said Accused persons have been  found  to  be
\nresponsible  for the death of the above said persons by the Sessions Court, it
\nis just and proper that the compensation amount paid to the petitioners should
\nbe recovered from them.  Therefore, the State  Government  is  at  liberty  to
\nrecover  the  compensation  amounts  that have been directed to be paid to the
\npetitioners in the above writ petitions from the salary, retirement  benefits,
\netc., payable to the accused 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 9, after observing the relevant
\nservice rules applicable to them.\n<\/p>\n
        17.   With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of.
\nNo costs.\n<\/p>\n
srk<\/p>\n
To,<\/p>\n
1.  The Secretary to Government
\nState of Tamil Nadu
\nDepartment of Home Affairs,
\nFort.  St.  George, Chennai – 600 009.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Secretary to Government
\nDepartment of Forests,
\nGovernment of Tamilnadu
\nFort.  St.  George, Chennai – 600 009.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Lakshmana Naidu (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 April, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28\/04\/2006 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAM W.P. No.1602 of 1999 to W.P. No.1604 of 1999 W.P.No.1602 of 1999 1. Lakshmana Naidu (deceased) 2. Varadammal (Petitioner No.2 brought as […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-142109","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nLakshmana Naidu (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-naidu-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lakshmana Naidu (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-naidu-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-16T19:09:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmana-naidu-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmana-naidu-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lakshmana Naidu (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-16T19:09:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmana-naidu-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3619,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmana-naidu-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmana-naidu-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmana-naidu-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-april-2006\",\"name\":\"Lakshmana Naidu (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-16T19:09:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmana-naidu-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmana-naidu-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmana-naidu-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lakshmana Naidu (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 April, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Lakshmana Naidu (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-naidu-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lakshmana Naidu (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-naidu-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-16T19:09:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-naidu-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-naidu-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lakshmana Naidu (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-16T19:09:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-naidu-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-april-2006"},"wordCount":3619,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-naidu-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-naidu-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-naidu-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-april-2006","name":"Lakshmana Naidu (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-16T19:09:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-naidu-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-naidu-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-naidu-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lakshmana Naidu (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 April, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142109","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=142109"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142109\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=142109"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=142109"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=142109"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}