LexKRISHNA MOHAN SHUKLA ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A KRISHNA MOHAN SHUKLA ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. JANUARY 25, 2CCO B (B.N. KIRPAL, K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Registration and processing of claims) Scheme, 1985 : Paras 5 and 11. C Bhopal Gas Tragedy-Victims-Medical categorisation of-Detennina- tion of compensation-Grieva11ces regarding-Held, under modified scheme the amount detennined as compensation for different types of ailments is not final-ft would be subject to determination afresh if called in ques- tio,_Against detennination made by Deputy Welfare Commissioner an ap- peal can be preferred before Additional Welfare Commissio,_Thereafter D revision lies to the Welfare Commissioner-Thereafter High Court can be approached under Article 226 rather than approaching Supreme Court directly under Articles 32 or 136. Bhopal Gas Disaste~ayment of compensation to victims-Constitu- tion of Lok Adalats for-Contention t.'1at Lok Adalats constituted were sham E and their decisions should be set at naugh~ejection of contention-Earlier pursuant to direction given by Supreme Court notice published by Additional Welfare Commissioner enabling claimants to file petitions for review of Lok Adalat's decision--Held, this direction would safeguard the interest of those persons who felt aggrieved by the decision of the Lok Adalats. F Bhopal Gas Tragedy-Victims-<Jrievance of lack of proper medical research and non-functioning of hospitals and medical f acilities--Held, this issue was covered by another pending writ petition-f'etitioner pennitted to raise this issue and assist the court during the hearing of that petition. G CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 66 of 1995 Etc. Etc. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. M. Chandrasekharan, V.R. Reddy, R.N. Trivedi, K. N. Rawal, Addi- H tional Solicitor Generals, P.P. Malhotra, V.C Mahajan, A.K. Sikri, A.K. 384 K. M. SHlJKIA v. lJ.O.I. 385 Chitale, Dushyant Dave, Harish N. Salve, Ms. Indira Jaising, A.H. Desai, A (Mrs. A.K. Verma) for M/s. JBD & Co., Shiv Sagar Tiwari, S. Muralidhar, Ms. Neeru Vaid, Anil K. Jha, Sunil Kumar, B.S. Banthia, T.S. Chaudhary, S.K. Gambhir, S. WasimA. Qadri, Ms. Sushma Suri, B.V. Bairam Das, S.K. Dwivedi, S.N. Terdol, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Sakesh Kumar, S.K. Agnihotri, K.S. Rana, Ms. Anubha Jain, D.S. Mehra, V.K. Rao, Ms. Madho Sikri, Harish Uppal, Arun K. Singh, Prashant Bhushan, A. Mariarputham, K.J. John, Ms. Indu Goswamy, S. Muralidhar, James J. Nedumpara, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Aran K. Sinha, Arvind K. Sharma, (Krishan Mohan Shilltla) In-Person for the Petitioner, M.P. Shorawalla, Ms. A. Subhashini, Suresh Kumar, Ms. Charu Singhal, Ranjit Kumar, P.K. Manohar, Mrs. Mirdula Agarwal, J.B. Dadachanji, D.V. Desai and Naresh Sharma for the appearing parties. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 66 of 1995. B c 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 E F G 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.