DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
order dated 21.7.06 in Appeal No.251/06 of the State Commission,
Delhi Transport Corporation … Petitioner
Mukhtyar Singh … Respondent
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT
MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr.J.S. Bhasin, Advocate
For the Respondent : In person
While discussing the administrative law, the Court observed that :
“The jurisdiction and power of the courts to indemnify a citizen for injury suffered due to abuse of power by public authorities is founded on the principle that, `an award of exemplary damages can serve a useful purpose in vindicating the strength of law’. An ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it.”
Present case reveals that an aged senior citizen was not only man-handled but was required to approach one forum or other or approach higher authorities for Redressal of his grievances and he could get justice only at the hands of the State Commission. No doubt, instead of succumbing to the pressure, we appreciate his courage of withstanding such agony.
In such cases, the concerned officers are required to be penalized. It was, therefore, observed that –
“The concept of authority and power exercised by public functionaries has many dimensions. It has undergone tremendous change with passage of time and change in socio-economic outlook.”
However, for reasons best known to them, our public authorities are not in a position to change their outlook in penalizing the officers who are not functioning properly.
The Court also observed that –
“It is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention linger on and the man in the street is made to run from one end to other with no result. The culture of window clearance appears to be totally dead. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the system.”
This is what is sought to be conveyed and contended by the complainant and it is his say that this Revision Petition is filed at the behest of some higher officers having wide hands with the DTC having no restriction in spending public funds for litigation.
Finally, the Court observed that –
“It is, therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.
In this view of the matter, the order
passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted as it is in conformity with
the law laid down by the
Hence, this Revision Petition is dismissed.
( M.B. SHAH)
/sra/ 6 / Court-1