AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ali Mohammad Magrey, J
In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs;
i. A writ of mandamus be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents, whereby respondents be commanded to implement the recommendations of Human Rights Commission and thereby be directed to the case of the petitioner to pay ex-gratia relief to the petitioner.
ii. A writ of mandamus be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents, whereby respondents be commanded by appointing under SRO 43 the elder son of the petitioner.
The petitioner claims to be widow of deceased (Abdul Ahad Malik), who as per the petitioner, left his home towards Srinagar on 16.02.2003 and on very next day, his dead body was received by his family members. It is stated that since the deceased was the only bread winner of the family, therefore, the petitioner filed a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission, Srinagar on 11.05.2004, in terms of J&K Human Rights Act, praying therein for grant of ex-gratia relief and benefit of employment to her son in terms of SRO 43 of 1994. The State Human Rights Commission, as stated, by judgment dated 09.04.2017, recommended the case of the petitioner to Government for payment of ex-gratia relief of Rs. 10.00 lacs in favour of the petitioner and benefit of employment in terms of SRO 43 to the elder son of the petitioner. It is further stated, that since the Government did not act upon the recommendations of the State Human Rights Commission, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for the above stated reliefs.
Mr B. A. Misri, learned appearing counsel for the petitioner, while strengthening his case, has invited attention of the Court to the Annexure-G of the writ petition which is a letter issued by Senior Superintendent of Police, Headquarters under No. CID/MR/SHRC/2007/89 dated 19.05.2018, addressed to the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, J&K, Jammu, making reference to some report that the deceased Abdul Ahad Malik was killed by some un-known militant at Srinagar, with further clarification that no case/report has been registered in the concerned police station nor any Medico legal formalities conducted.
Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora-Respondent No. 3 has filed his reply, stating the petitioner had a natural death, on the strength of report submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police, Ganderbal vide No. Pross/HR/08/9438-39 dated 08.07.2008 and also has placed on record photocopy of certificate issued by Deputy Medical Superintendent, SMHS Hospital, Srinagar bearing No. Misc-21/818 dated 09.03.2003, certifying that the deceased Abdul Ahad Malik S/o Late Abdul Gani r/o Shilvat Sonawari, was admitted in the hospital on 16.02.2003 as a case of Cardio Vascular Arrest under MRD No 181594 and expired on 16.02.2003.
Petitioner has filed his response, refuting the stand taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, by placing on record certificate issued by Resident Medical Office Records, Government SMHS Hospital issued vide No. MRD/098 dated 25.05.2017, certifying that under MRD No. 181594, there is an un-known patient admitted in the hospital without showing address and parentage.
The objections of Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, are disputing the cause of death of the deceased related to some accident/violence by security forces, which has reference to the letter of AIG (HQRS) Vigilance Organization dated 10.07.2008.
The respondents have disputed the claim of the petitioner that her husband died in a militancy related incident and have in fact stated that the said deceased died a natural death. From the perusal of the pleadings too, it is not forth coming that the deceased died in a militancy related incident, therefore, disputed questions of fact are involved in the present case, which cannot be determined/adjudicated by this Court and no relief can be passed on disputed question of facts. The petitioner has to approach a civil Court for establishment of her right before filing a writ petition. The recommendations of Human Rights Commission are not binding on the respondents, moreso, when they have denied the claim of the petitioner that the deceased (Abdul Ahad Malik) died in a militancy related incident
In the above background, the instant petition is devoid of any merit and, accordingly, same is dismissed in limine alongwith the connected CMs.
However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the petitioner to approach the civil Court for establishment of her right with reference to death of her husband/deceased (Abdul Ahad Malik) as well as implementation of the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission.