(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. This contempt petition has been filed by one of the riot victim of post-Godhra riots of the year 2002. The applicant was one of the petitioners of Special Civil Application No.8826 of 2011. In the said petition, prayer was made for direction to the respondent to pay compensation to the petitioners as per the direction given by High Court in order dated 14.2.2011. Such order dated 14.2.2011 was passed by Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.14664 of 2008 and connected proceedings.
2. The issue pertains to the relief to be paid to the riot affected victims. Residential/ commercial properties of the petitioner having been damaged, as per the Scheme framed by the State Government, vide Government Resolutions dated 11.3.2002 and 23.4.2002, the petitioner had an option either to receive ex-gratia payment, not exceeding to Rs.10,000/-, or to receive loan as provided in the said Government Resolutions. The petitioner at the relevant time, on the basis of the circumstances, opted for receiving loan.
3. Subsequently, Union of India released further funds to be distributed amongst riot affected victims through the State Government and to increase ex-gratia payment to be made. This is apparent from the communication dated 27.4.2007 from the Ministry of Home Affairs to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Gujarat. Pursuant to such developments, the State of Government also issued fresh Government Resolution dated 24.9.2007, incorporating the provisions for releasing further aid in favour of the riot affected victims.
4. It was in this background that the present petitioner along with others had approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.8826 of 2011. Such petition came to be disposed of by Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 15.9.2011, in which, following order was passed:-
"1 Heard learned Advocate Ms Utpala S.Bora for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader Mr. P.K. Jani for the respondent No.1 State and learned Advocate Mr. Anshin H. Desai for respondent No.2.
2 Similar Public Interest Litigation, being Special Civil Application No.14664 of 2008 with group of matters have been disposed by the Division Bench of this Court on 7.9.2011 where the direction was given to the State Government to expeditiously dispose of all pending applications of persons claiming to be riot victims, whose names are existing on the State Government list of riot victims and which are pending adjudication in the office of the District Collectors in the State of Gujarat, in accordance with the Policy dated 12.09.2007 and 20/27.04.2007 and the office of the District Collectors shall inform the concerned persons of such decision.
3 The petitioners in the present petition also fall in the same category and representation has been made on behalf of the petitioners by Jan Sangharsh Manch and the same has been pending before the State Government. We dispose of the present petition expecting the respondents authorities to act as per the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 14664 of 2008 and other group of matters and take a decision on the said representation expeditiously and the office of the District Collectors shall inform the concerned persons of such decision. The petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs."
5. The petitioner approached by filing the present contempt petition alleging that despite the directions of this Court contained in order dated 15.9.2011, the authorities had not taken any decision. By the time, such petition came up for preliminary hearing, the respondent had already communicated to the petitioner an order passed on 30.8.2011, by which the request of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons for grant of riot relief came to be turned down.
6. It can thus be seen that even when this Court disposed of Special Civil Application No.8826 of 2011 on 15.9.2011, the authority had already taken a decision on 30.8.2011, rejecting the request of present petitioner and other similarly situated persons for being granted riot relief. Had this order been brought to the notice of the Division Bench, surely, direction for taking decision on the representation of the petitioner would not have been issued. Respondents have, however, tried to explain this non-communication of order dated 30.8.2011 to the Court when the petition was heard and disposed of. In an affidavit dated 13.3.2012, filed by respondent Shri Vijay Nehra, Collector, Ahmedabad, it is stated that the said decision (i.e. one dated 30.8.2011) was communicated to the office of the Government Pleader on 13.9.2011 and that the same ought to have been brought to the notice of the High Court on 15.9.2011 when the petition was heard. However, on account of inadvertent mistake on the part of the office of the Government Pleader, such communication was not placed for consideration before the Bench.
7. In view of the explanation rendered by the respondent, we do not take any serious view of the lapse. However, we cannot help observing that had such a decision been brought to the notice of this Court on 15.9.2011, when the petition was being heard, number of complications and fresh proceedings could have been avoided. Be that as it may, our task is to ascertain, whether any contempt is committed by the respondent.
8. Learned counsel Shri Mukul Sinha for the petitioner submitted that the Government of India while releasing additional fund for the riot affected persons, made no condition that only those riot affected persons, who had opted for ex-gratia payment, would receive further aid. In this regard, he placed reliance on the communication of the Central Government dated 27.4.2007. Alternatively, he contended that Government of India decided to increase the aid to riot victims by 10 times. When ex-gratia payment limits were revised by 10 times, any person who had previously opted for loan instead of ex-gratia payment, must be given fresh option in view of such developments.
9. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader Shri Jani submitted that decision of the authority is based on Government of India's communication dated 27.4.2007 and in tune with the conditions contained therein.
10. We are however, of the opinion that such issues can be judged not in the present contempt petition but in appropriate proceeding, if so instituted by the petitioner, or any other similarly situated person. Insofar as the present petition is concerned, only direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 15.9.2011 was to the authorities to take decision on the request of the petitioner for being granted relief as riot victims from the funds released by the Central Government for such purpose. Such decision has already been taken. No question of contempt, therefore, survives. It may be that such decision was taken even before the High Court issued its direction, this however does not mean that the respondent had any intention to disregard any order or direction of this Court.
11. In view of the above observations, keeping it open for the petitioner to resort to appropriate remedy for his unresolved grievances, the present contempt petition is disposed of. We express no opinion on the rival submissions on the petitioner's entitlement to receive any relief. Notice is discharged.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (C.L.
SONI, J.) omkar Top