K. Veereshwar vs State Of Telangana

The petitioner before this Court, K.Veereshwar, party-in-person, has filed this present writ petition claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) along with interest @ 18% per annum. His contention is that his brother late K.Rameshwar was a person with disability and was diagnosed with ‘mild mental retardation with psychosis’. He has further stated that he has approached the office of the Commissioner (Disabilities) on 10.07.2000 to grant accommodation, rehabilitation as well as enough other facilities to his brother. He has approached the authorities under the Central Government and the State Government, however, as nothing was done by the respondents, the brother of the petitioner expired on account of road accident.

This is not the first visit of the petitioner in respect of the same cause of action. The petitioner, earlier also, has approached this court by filing a writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.11738 of 2002 and this Court by an order dated 19.07.2002 has dismissed the aforesaid writ petition with liberty to the legal heirs of Rameshwar, if any, to seek appropriate remedy for compensation by filing a suit in civil court in accordance with law.

The petitioner has also filed another writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.24544 of 2002 and the said writ petition was dismissed on 07.03.2003 and paragraphs 14 to 17 are reproduced as under:-

“14. It is true that Section 2(i) of the Act, which defines ‘disability’ includes mental retardation, but so far as Section 56 is concerned it is specified under sub-section (4) that for the purpose of the said section persons with severe disability means a person with 80 per cent or more of one or more disabilities. There is nothing on record to show that the brother of the petitioner is a “person with severe disability” as defined under sub-section (4) of Section 56 and it is not known whether he was eligible for admission in the institutions established under Section 56 of the Act. Admittedly, he is no more and the disputed question of his state of mind cannot be decided.

Be that as it may, the allegation of the petitioner is that the State Government not only failed to establish and maintain as provided under Section 56 of the Act but also could not take any alternative measures for rehabilitation of persons with disabilities. In the light of the detailed counter filed by the Commissioner of Disabled Welfare, A.P., the allegation of the petitioner appears to be without any basis. It is stated in the counter that there are 474 non-Governmental organizations functioning in the State to cater to the needs of the persons with disability of different categories, including rehabilitation of mentally retarded persons. Many of them are receiving Grant-in-aid from Government of India. It is also clear from the detailed counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner that in pursuance of the representations made by the petitioner and also in compliance with the orders of this Court in earlier writ petition appropriate steps have been taken by the respondents for rehabilitating the brother of the petitioner in various institutions run by non-Governmental organizations. In the light of the counter filed by the Commissioner, Disabled Welfare, Government of A.P., which remained unrebutted, I am unable to accept the contentions raised by the petitioner. The allegation that the brother of the petitioner died in a road accident due to the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents to provide rehabilitation for him appears to be misconceived. The petitioner cannot be granted any compensation as prayed for, on the basis of the contentions raised in this writ petition.

In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. However, it is made clear that since admittedly the brother of the petitioner died in a road accident, it is open to the petitioner or any other legal representative of the deceased Rameshwar to initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum making a claim for compensation in accordance with law.

With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.”

The conclusion arrived at in the above writ petition is that in case, the petitioner or any other legal representative of the deceased Rameshwar, who was a physically challenged person, wants to claim compensation, such a claim can be made before appropriate forum in accordance with law.

Now, the third writ petition has been filed before this Court claiming compensation in the matter. The petitioner is claiming compensation on behalf of his brother, who was suffering from disability and is no more. The petitioner has filed large number of writ petitions and writ appeals seeking for similar relief which is prayed for in the present case. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs, in the present writ petition:-

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents have to pay me a nice compensation of Rs.15 lakhs + 18% interest per annum from the year 2009 for their incorrect preparation of the record/document vide Lr.No.4613/C2/2000, dated 22.09.2000, saying, assessing and classifying the diagnosis, Mild Mental Retardation with Psychosis’ which it was suffered by my deceased mentally retarded younger brother late K.Rameshwar as the severe disability and later which it was found and declared that it is not at all as a severe disability, thereby for not providing the rehabilitation, hostel accommodation in time on the above said cause of sufferance is of severe disability, moreover for not providing an alternative remedy, for the default in not establishing the Institutions for the Severe Disabilities under Section 56 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, as per their version, for which it lead to his unfortunate forcible death in a road accident; and pass such other order or orders in the circumstances of the case and it ends for justice.”

In the considered opinion of this Court, successive writ petitions and writ appeals have been filed by the petitioner in respect of the same cause of action. The petitioner is certainly free to file a civil suit and not a writ petition or a writ appeal claiming compensation. The disputed questions of fact can be proved only on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties in a civil suit and this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot decide the disputed questions of fact.

Learned Government Pleader for Women and Child Welfare has drawn the attention of this Court towards an order passed in Criminal Petition No.9883 of 2021, dated 17.12.2021 and the order passed by this Court reveals that the petitioner is an accused in a criminal case registered as crime No.326 of 2019 on the file of Kushaiguda Police Station for allegedly killing his own mother and he is facing trial for an offence under Section 302 IPC vide S.C.No.19 of 2022 pending before the Court of the XVI Additional District Judge, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad.

The petitioner whether he is guilty or not for allegedly committing the murder of his own mother can only be looked into after the trial based upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution and therefore, this Court is not commenting upon the petitioner’s alleged involvement in respect of killing of his own mother, for which he is facing a trial.

This Court is concerned with the present writ petition and in the present case, the petitioner has made unsuccessful attempts before this Court on number of earlier occasions claiming compensation in respect of departed soul, who was suffering with certain disabilities during his lifetime.

This Court does not find any reason to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.