1. Heard Ms. Bora, learned Advocate for petitioner. The petitioner has taken out present petition seeking below mentioned relief and directions.
"8(A) be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner as per the policy decision of the Central Government and also as per the directions issued by the Division Bench (Coram: Honourable the Chief Justice Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhya and Honourable Mr. Justice J.B.Pardiwala) in Special Civil Application No.14664 of 2008 along with other allied matters by order dated 07.09.201 at Annexure-A to this petition.
2. The petitioner claims that he is one of the riots affected victims. The petitioner has also claimed that in view of the directions by the Court and policy of the Government, the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation. The petitioner has also relied on the decision dated 7th September 2011 by the Division Bench in Special Civil Application No.14664 of 2008 and other connected matters. On the ground that he is riot affected victim and is entitled for compensation in view of the Government's policy and also in light of the decision by the Court, the petitioner seems to have made application seeking compensation in accordance with policy of the Government. However, according to the petitioner, until now any amount has not been paid to the petitioner. Therefore present petition.
3. In the decision dated 7th September 2011 in S.C.A.No. 14664 of 2008 and other connected matters, the Division Bench, inter alia, observed that:
"28.
We direct that the State Government shall 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 (Annexure B) and 20/27.04.2007 (Annexure D), and the office of the District Collectors shall inform the concerned persons of such decision."
4. It appears that the office of District Collector, Ahmedabad had addressed a letter dated 16.01.2012 to the City Mamlatdar instructing to take necessary steps to make payment of compensation, in accordance with Government's policy, to the persons whose names are mentioned in the said letter dated 16.01.2012.
5. The petitioner has claimed that his name appears at serial no.7 in the said communication dated 16.01.2012. However, on perusal of the said communication dated 16.01.2012 it appears that at serial no.7 name of one Mr. Pathan Gulam Ahmed Sarifulla is mentioned and his address is shown as, 133, Mahalaxmi Shopping Centre, Smruti Mandir, Canal Road, Vatva. Whereas, on perusal of the memo of petition it emerges that in the petition name of the petitioner, as originally mentioned was "Gulam Mohammad Sarifulla Pathan". However, subsequently "Mohammad" is scored off and is corrected to "Ahmed", as a result of which, name of the petitioner, now, reads thus:
"Gulam Ahmed Sarifulla Pathan"
Similar correction is made at least at three other places i.e. on the first page of the memo of petition where index is drawn, on the page where list of events begins and also in the part where affidavit is made, such corrections are made. These are in addition to the correction made in the name mentioned in the cause title of the petition.
6. Even the petitioner's address in the cause title is different from what is mentioned in the communication dated 16.01.2012.
7. In this view of the matter, it appears that the factual aspects require proper scrutiny, more particularly, the identity is required to be ascertained by the competent authority.
8. However, this aspect should not provide reason to delay the payment. This aspect should have been already completed. The authorities have already caused inordinate delay.
9. The petition was initially heard by the Court on 9th March 2012. After hearing the petitioner, office was directed to issue notice to the respondents. Notice was made returnable on 2nd April 2012. It was clearly mentioned in the notice that notice was issued for final disposal. Thus, the respondents should have filed their reply explaining the reason for delay in making the payment. The said order dated 9th March 2012 reads thus:
"Notice for final disposal returnable on 02.04.2012. Direct service permitted qua respondent no.1."
10. Despite the said clear direction, the respondents have not filed reply affidavit until now. Therefore, Court is constrained to pass final order giving appropriate directions to the concerned respondents, more particularly, in view of the observations made by the Division Bench in para 28 of the above mentioned decision dated 7th September 2011.
11. Thus, present petition is disposed of with below mentioned directions:
12. The City Mamlatdar or the competent authority shall take up the case of the petitioner for expeditious consideration and final decision immediately. In view of the discrepancy with reference to name and address mentioned in the petition and identity of the petitioner, the competent authority may ascertain the petitioner's identity by requiring the petitioner to submit satisfactory material/documents to establish his identity as the person whose name is mentioned at serial no.7 in communication dated 16.01.2012. Such exercise will be completed by the competent authority within one week from the date of service of certified copy of present order. Upon being satisfied about the identity of the person i.e. that the petitioner is the same person whose name is mentioned at serial No.7 in communication dated 16.01.2012, the concerned and competent authority shall make payment of compensation in accordance with the policy, within 10 days thereafter. Thus, the entire exercise should be completed within a period of three weeks from the date on which certified copy of present order is served.
13. It is clarified that even if the petitioner is a person whose name is not mentioned in the said communication dated 16.01.2012 but if he is able to satisfy the competent authority that he is one of the riot affected victims, then also (i.e. even if petitioner's name is not included in the said letter but if he is riot affected victim) the above referred directions will be applicable and shall be complied with by the competent authority and necessary payment upon being satisfied about the factual aspects, shall be made by the competent authority within time limit mentioned herein above.
14. Petitioner is permitted to directly serve certified copy of present order in addition to the regular mode of service of order by the office. The learned A.G.P. shall also forward a copy of present order to the District Collector, Ahmedabad and City Mamlatdar.
15. With the aforesaid clarification and directions, the petition is disposed of.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) jani Top