RANCHI, India, Aug. 5 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on July 4:

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment dt. 3.7.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 6550 of 2023.

2. The appellant was the owner of a mango orchid. Adjacent to the said mango orchid, a stone crusher unit was set up two and half years prior to the filing of the Writ petition.

3. It is contended by the appellant that the dust emitted by the stone crusher unit did not allow the growth of the mangoes properly and this damaged his livelihood and income. He contends that in spite of several representations given by him to the respondents no action was taken against the stone crusher unit (4th respondent).

4. The appellant had filed W.P.(C) No. 6550 of 2023 by impleading the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary as the 1st respondent, the National Highways Authority of India as the 2nd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as the 3rd respondent, and the stone crusher unit as the 4th respondent in the Writ petition.

5. It was contended on behalf of the appellant in the Writ petition that the right to earn livelihood is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, that any infringement thereof is amenable to the writ jurisdiction and the appellant is entitled to approach this Court claiming damages/ compensation.

6. Reliance was placed by the counsel for the appellant in the Writ petition on Nilabati Behera (Smt) Vs. State of Orissa and others1 and Olga Tellis & Others Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & others.2

7. The respondents contended before the learned Single Judge in the Writ petition that the claim of the appellant needs proper assessment and determination which cannot be done under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since there would be several disputed question of fact which would arise in the determination of the amount of damages.

8. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ petition stating that in a case of pecuniary loss, a party who is claiming such damages needs to be established nature of loss and quantum of such loss, and he has to prove by cogent evidence what he was earning and what he was supposed to earn, and the circumstances which has led to shortfall in the earning and the extent of such reduction, for which the damages are being claimed. He held that these are the questions of fact.

9. The learned Single Judge held that the appellant did not claim in the Writ a direction to the respondents to shut down the 4th respondent unit, but he is only seeking damages and compensation and to prove the extent of damage he has to prove the number of trees which he had planted, the amount of yield he was receiving prior to setting up of the 4th respondent unit, the impact of the crusher unit and the down fall of the yield.

10. He also held that the appellant has to prove as to what amount he was earning earlier and what he is earning now, and this requires documentary and oral evidence and the assessment of damages cannot be made on mere asking or hypothesis even if there is loss of livelihood.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqJ4Kr7AcI9YXoaP5u7TBfPL71HwcDKtKSuPXHy8g%2B9Ns&caseno=LPA/462/2024&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010294842024&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.