2025:JHHC:17837-DB -1 of 5- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 462 of 2024 Mr. Bishu Oraon, Son of Gumda Oraon, aged about 56 years resident of Village-Hutri, P.O.- Asro P.S.- Bero, Block-Bero District- Ranchi, Jharkhand -835203. …… Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Secretariat, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand -834004 2. The National Highways Authority of India (Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Govt. of India) G 5&6, Dabri Gurgaon Rd, Sector 10 Dwarka, P.O.+P.S.- Dwarka, Delhi, 110075 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, Room No. 112, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Ranchi Sadar, 1st Floor, Block "B", D.C. Office, Kutchery Rd, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834001 4. M/s RKD CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD B-20, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Patia, P.O. + P.S. Bhuabaneswar-751024, Phone-0674-3056565 …. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellant: Mrs. Rakhi Rani, Advocate For the State: Mr. Yogesh Modi, A.C. to AAG-IA For the NHAI: Mrs. Sweety Topno, Advocate Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate For Resp. No.4: Mr. Yogendra Prasad, Advocate --------- Reserved on: 30.06.2025 Pronounced on: 4.7.2025 Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. 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 2025:JHHC:17837-DB -2 of 5- 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 1 (1993) 2 SCC 746 2 (1985) 3 SCC 545 2025:JHHC:17837-DB -3 of 5- 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. 11. The learned Single Judge held that the facts need to be unearthed, investigated and determined on the basis of the evidence and so the appropriate Forum would be the Civil Court rather than the Writ Court. 12. The learned Single Judge held that even if the case of the appellant is accepted that his income has been curtailed and his right has been infringed by the 4th respondent by use of the crusher unit, the said infringement is a private law right for which a public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked. 13. He, therefore, dismissed the Writ petition but granted liberty to the appellant to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for 2025:JHHC:17837-DB -4 of 5- settling claim of the damages by producing appropriate and adequate evidence in support of the appellant’s claim. 14. Challenging the same, this Appeal is filed. 15. Counsel for the appellant relied on the same judgments which the appellant had relied before the learned Single Judge i.e. Nilabati Behera (1 Supra) and Olga Tellis (2 Supra). 16. The case of Nilabati Behera (1 Supra) related to a custodial death and the Supreme Court in exercise of its powers under Article 32 of the Constitution of India read with Article 142 and Article 300 of the Constitution of India granted compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the mother of the deceased. The Supreme Court held that a claim in public law for compensation is maintainable for contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the protection of which is guaranteed in the Constitution; and such a claim is based on strict liability and can be made by resorting to a Constitutional remedy provided for the enforcement of fundamental right which is distinct from and in addition to the remedy in private law for damages for the tort resulting from the contravention of the fundamental right. 17. Olga Tellis (2 supra) arose in a Writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India out of a case of forcible eviction of pavement and slum dwellers under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court held that the right to life includes right to work for livelihood which makes it possible for a person to live, and that pavement dwellers will be deprived of their livelihood if they are evicted from the slum and pavement, and there 2025:JHHC:17837-DB -5 of 5- would be a violation of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 18. Both these decisions deal with different facts and situations unlike the present case which is clearly a claim for pecuniary loss allegedly on account of running of a stone crusher unit by the 4th respondent. 19. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the appellant would have to prove several facts required to make a claim for damages for loss of crop from the 4th respondent, and such a claim is in the realm of private law and the appropriate remedy for the appellant is to approach the Civil Court and lead evidence to establish the various facts necessary for successfully making the claim. 20. We completely agree with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and hold that the remedy of the Writ petition availed by the appellant is wholly misconceived, and that the appropriate remedy for the appellant would be to approach Civil Court and claim damages from the 4th respondent or others by establishing the facts necessary for the said purpose. 21. We therefore, do not find any merit in the Letters Patent Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) N.A.F.R. VK