Krishna Mohan Shukla Etc. Etc. v. Union of India and Ors.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 66 of 1995.
We have heard the petitioner and also the counsel for the respon- D
dents.
Numerous orders had been passed earlier in this writ petition dealing
with various aspects of the case. On 16th March, 1998, this Court required
the petitioner to give in writing the issues which survived in the writ petition
in respect of which directions from this Court were necessary.
Pursuant to the said directions, the petitioner filed an affidavit dated
16th April 1998. Two categories under which issues were stated to arise
were : Firstly, alleged arbitrary functioning of the Bhopal Gas Relief
Tribunal; and secondly, with regard to the medical facilities.
In relation to the allegation regarding the arbitrary functioning of the
Tribunal, the grievance was that there was defective medical categorisation,
preparation of illegal compensation and categorisation list, holding of
so-called Lok Adalats which was illegal, arbitrary manner in which the suo
motu revisional powers were exercised, etc.
After the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, a Scheme had been prepared in 1985
by the Government of India. Para 5 of the said Scheme prnvided for . •
categorisation and registration of claims. Sub-clause (2) dealt with different
categories under which the claims could be registered. Pursuant thereto,
the Central Government under sub-clause (2) of Para 11 of the Scheme H
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 1 S.C.R.
A determined the total amount of compensation which could be apportioned
for each category of Haims and the quantum of compensation payable in
general in relation to each type of injury or loss.
One of the grievances which has been made bt:fore us is that the
B Deputy Commissioner~ adopted and formulated their own yardsticks for
the purpose of paying compensation to the claimants. For exampk, for
chronic conjunctivitis, proposed amount of compensation was Rs. 35,C:Y.J.
It is submitted by the petitioner that mentioning these amounts as compen
sation payablt: wa~ arbitrary and contrary to the Scheme.
C There is no grievance with regard to thLO quantum of compensation
which has been specifit:d by the Government undt:r Para 11 (2). For each
category falling under Para 5, the amount of compensation payable is
specified. In two cases, the amount specified is fixed, whereas in the case
·of other categories there is a scale which had been provided within which
D the amount of compensation is required to be determined. On 6th Decem
ber, 1997, in the proposed compensation amount, it was clarified that the
figures mentioned therein were only guiddines and were not conclusive as
to the amount of compensation which was payable and if the Deputy
Commissioner or the Additional Co.nmissioner was satisfied then for
reasons to be recorded in writting, they could award compensation in
E excess of the amount indicated then:in.
As we see it, the limits within which compensation can be awarded
for claimants falling under different categories in para 5, the Central
Government has specified the amounts under Para 11(2). Specific ailments
p are not mt:ntioned therein. In practice, the Deputy Welfare Commissioner
and the Additional Welfare Commissioner have to deal with ailments and
the question would arise as to under what category of Para 5 of the Scheme
would they fall and secondly as to what is the specific amount which is
payable to them within the scale. The Committee of Deputy Commissioners
appear to have formulated a yardstick which would obviously avoid delay
G in the determination of the amount of compensation which is payable. In
a modification carried out on 6th December, 1997, it has been made clear,
and in our opinion rightly so, that the amount determined as compensation
for different types of ailments is not final. It will be subject to determination
afresh, if called in question, either in appeal or in revision before the
H Welfare Commissioner. We would at this stag.: like to emphasise that we
K. M. SHUKLA v. V.O.I. 387
have seen orders pased by the Welfare Commissioner where he has entt:r- A
taincd revision petitions against the orders in appeal passed by the Addi
tional Commissioner. A Welfare Commissiner is a sitting Judge of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court and normally, therefore, the claimant should
have no cause of grievance after the decision by the Welfare Commissioner.
Even if then:aftt:r there is some grievance, the right of judicial review, inter B aJia, provided by Artides 226 and 227 of the Constitution is always avail
able. There can be little doubt that the aggrieved persons are entitled to
receive fair and just compensation and/or damages due to them. There is
now a system in place and any claims which arc made, have to be deter
mined within this system. There is first determination by the Deputy
Welfare Commissioner against which an appeal can be filed to the Addi
tional Welfare Commissioner and thereafter a revision to the welfare
Commissioner. If even then there is a grievance of a claimant, proper
remedy is to approach the High Court who would be in a position to deal
with a case more expeditiously and give relief to the individual claimant,
where it is called for, without undue expense, rather than approaching this D
Court under Artide 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution.
As far as the grievance of the petitioner that the Lok Adalats which
were constituted were sham and all those decisions should be set at naught,
we are not inclined to accept the said contention. It appears that grievance
with regard to Lok Adalats was made bt:fore this Court whereupon order
dated 7th November, 1997 W"clS passed in which it was, inter alia, observed
as follows : ,.-
" ...... In the circumstances it is directed that the claimant falling p
in Medical Category 'C' and above who feels aggrieved by the
amount of compensation awarded by the Lok Adalats and the
appeal being not entertained by the Additional Welfare Commis
sioner against such award may file a review petition for n.:view of
the award. Such review petition shall be considered by the con
cerned Additional Wclfan: Commissioner. The office of the Wei, G
fare Commissioner shall issue a public notice with regard to above
direction given by this Court and publish it in a local newspaper
so that the claimants may know that they can file a review petition.
The review petition should be filed within two months from the
date of the publication of the notice." H
388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2000) 1 S.C.R.
A This order, inter alia postulated the entertaining of n:view petitions in cases
of claimants falling under Medical Category 'C' and above and whose
appeals had not been entertained by the Additional Welfare Commissioner
and the review petitions could be filed within two months of the public
notice being issued in the local newspapers. We are informed that such
B public notice was issued. This direction, to our mind, would clearly
safeguard the interest of those persons who really felt aggrieved by the
decision of the Lok Adalats and had then sought to challenge the same.If
there was no challenge to the agreement arrived at in the Lok Adalats, the
order dated 7th November, 1997 did not postulate giving a further oppor
tunity. The said decision of 7th November, 1997 of this Court does not
C require any reconsiderntion, even though the petitioner submitted that this
should be done.
The grievance is also made with regard to lack of proper medical
research and the non-fuctioning of the hospitals and generally with regard
to the medical facilities. The issues raised in this regard are convered by
D Writ Petition (Civil) No. 50 of 1998 {Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila V. Sangat.
& Ors. v. U.O.l. & Ors.). In our opinion, it will be more appropriate to deal
with these aspects of the case, namely pertaining to the furnishing of the
medical facilities in Writ Petition {C) No. 50 of 1998. In that petition,
pleadings are complete, affidavits have~ been filed and some orders passed.
E The petitioner will be at liberty to assist the learned counsel appearing in
Writ Petition {Civil) No. 50 of 1998. If necessary, even though we are
disposing of this writ petition, the counsel appearing in Writ Petition {Civil)
No. 50 of 1998 will be at liberty to refer to any affidavit or document which
may have been filed in this writ petition.
F This writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. It is
clarified that if any of the claimants has any grievance against an order
passed by the Welfare Commissioner or by the Tribunal, it is open to the
claimant to seek judicial review, but first it must be sought before the High
Court rather than filing a writ petition under Article 32 or a special leave
G petition under Article 136 directly in this Court.
Contempt retition (C) No. 364/1998 in W.P. (C) No. 66/1995
The petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to
file a fresh petition giving all necessary particulars. This contempt petition
H is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.
' --
K. M. SHUKLA v. VD.I. 389
SLP(C) No. 110711998, SLP(C) No. 118711999, SLP(C) No. A
12529/1998, SLP(C) No. 12875/1997, SLP(C) No. 15822/1996 SLP(C) No.
17519/1998, SLP(C) No.18126/1998, SLP(C) No.18130/1995, SLP(C) Nos.
1643-44/2000 (CC 1979-80/99), SLP(C) No.20742/1998, SLP(C)
No.2191/1999. C.A. No. 2542/1999, SLP(C) No.2687211995, SLP(C)
No.26967/1995, C.A. No. 3004/1999, C.A. No.3025/1999, C.A. No. B
3332/1996, SLP(C) Nos. 1645-46/2000 (CC 3723-24/99), SLP(C) No.
1647/2000 (CC 4678/96), SLP(C) No. 500511999, SLP(C) No. 5065/1996,
SLP(C) No. 59711998, SLP(C) No. 6140/1999, SLP(C) No. 8942/1996,
SLP(C) No. 9724/1999, SLP(C) No. 9729/1999 and SLP(C) No. 9753/1999]
In our opinon, all these matters should be heard by the High Court C
of Madhya Pradesh who will deal with the individual cases on the basis of
the pleadings before it or such pleadings which may be filed. We direct all
these matters to be transferred to the High Curt who will treat them as
petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and deal with them
in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Where the matter
arises against an order of the Welfare Commissioner, the same should be D
heard by a Division Bench. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court
will pass appropriate orders in this behalf.
T.N.A. Petition disposed of/dismissed and all
the remaining matters should be heard by
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh