2005 INSC 0096
Chief Secretary & Others
v.
Students of A.P.A.U. & Others
(Supreme Court Of IndiaJUSTICE ASHOK BHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
A.K. MATHUR
C. A. No. 2662 of 1999 | 27-01-2005

1. An unfortunate incident took place on 13-9-1996 in which one Srinivas
Reddy (since deceased) threw acid on Ms Anuradha, Respondent 2 herein, who
was a final year BSc (Agriculture) student, causing extensive burn injuries to
her. The students of the University sent a letter/petition to the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh, which was treated as public interest petition and numbered as
writ petition (WP No. 19820 of 1996).

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh has filed this appeal by grant of special leave
against the impugned judgment of the High Court in WP No. 19820 of 1996
wherein the High Court apart from giving the following four directions, ordered
payment of Rs 5 lakhs as compensation to the victim Ms Anuradha:

"(i) The State of Andhra Pradesh shall provide to the second petitioner Ms
Anuradha full and complete treatment for the burn injuries suffered by her,
including surgery and plastic surgery for repair of the damages, in particular,
including all costs and expenses on treatment, hospitalisation and transport, etc.
In course of the treatment and for all the above, give exclusive expert treatment
in the government hospitals as well as in other hospitals where best treatment
for the wounds suffered by her is available. The State shall meet all expenses of
her lodging and board in hospitals and/or nursing homes and/or any other place
where she is permitted to stay by the attending physicians/surgeons.

(2) The University shall permit the second petitioner to appear in the
examinations without her complying with the necessary conditions of
attendance of classes, etc., and make such arrangements for her writing the
examinations which attending physicians / surgeons would recommend. On her
completing the studies, if any further she would desire to study, the University

1  SpotLaw
would admit her to the course / courses of study of her choice without insisting
for any entrance examination and/or fulfilment of the merit for the purpose of
selection, etc. In case, on the basis of her qualifications already acquired, she
decides to go for a job or service and befitting her qualifications there is any job
in the University, the University shall give to her the job and shall, for the said
purpose, relax all conditions of recruitment.

(3) The State Government shall appoint a Special Prosecutor and entrust the
case to him for prosecuting N. Srinivas Reddy and ensure that Ms Anuradha and
other witnesses are provided full protection and are given necessary batta, etc.,
on time as and when they are required to depose in the case.

(4) The University shall issue necessary notification / order with respect to the
appointment of a retired Judge of the High Court duly nominated by the Chief
Justice for enquiry into the allegations against the Principal - the second
respondent and other persons who have allegedly indulged in misconducts as
per the statements in the report of Smt Annapurna Devi, Advocate. The enquiry
in this behalf shall be completed within a period of two months."

3. The High Court, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,
gave the aforesaid directions on humanitarian grounds. We are not inclined to
interfere with the directions given by the High Court in exercise of its
extraordinary jurisdiction on compassionate grounds, except to the extent
indicated hereinafter:

Prior to the grant of the sum of Rs 5 lakhs as compensation by the High Court,
the Chief Minister of the State, had ordered ex gratia payment of Rs 2 lakhs to
Respondent 2 (Ms Anuradha) as financial assistance. The said amount of ex
gratia was sent to Respondent 2 vide Memo No. 44778 / D. A. 2 / 98 dated 22-
6-1998 from the Revenue Secretary, Government of A. P., the receipt of which
is not disputed.

4. The direction of the High Court with regard to the payment of Rs 5 lakhs is
made absolute, but it would include the ex gratia payment of Rs 2 lakhs already

2  SpotLaw
made to Respondent 2. It is made clear that the ex gratia payment of Rs 2 lakhs
shall not be over and above the compensation amount of Rs 5 lakhs ordered by
the High Court.

5. Counsel appearing for the respondents, contended that the directions issued
by the High Court have not been implemented in full to the entire satisfaction of
Respondent 2, which was refuted by the counsel for the appellant.

6. We are not inclined to enter into this controversy, leaving it open to
Respondent 2 to get the directions of the High Court implemented, if not
already implemented. The balance amount of Rs 3 lakhs be paid to Respondent
2 within a period of three months from today.

7. Since the High Court had passed this order, on the facts and circumstances of
the case, on humanitarian grounds, it would not be treated as a precedent for any
future reference.

8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

3  SpotLaw