1. Heard Mr. Mansuri, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Shah, learned AGP, for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr. Desai, learned advocate for the respondent No.6.
2. The petitioner has taken out present petition seeking below mentioned relief:-
“17(A) THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO order and direct the respondents to pay compensation for the losses sustained in 2002 riots, which is legally due to the petitioner, forthwith in the interest of justice and equity.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has claimed that the petitioner is one of the victims of riots in 2002 and despite representations, until now, the petitioner has not been paid any amount towards compensation for the loss/damage suffered by the petitioner/caused to petitioner's property. The petitioner has claimed that the petitioner was running a small STD booth and hair cutting saloon in the premises which got damaged during the riots. It is claimed by the petitioner that on 4.3.2002, the petitioner had filed FIR at Rajkot City, 'B' Division Police Station wherein complaint about damage caused to the premises was lodged. It is claimed that after long time, the petitioner received a copy of communication made by District Collector to the Mamlatdar asking the Mamlatdar to examine the case of the petitioner and to take appropriate action with reference to petitioner's request. It is also claimed by the petitioner that even after the said communication, the petitioner has not received any payment or response. However, from one of the documents placed on record by the respondent, it appears that an order dated 21.4.2006 has been passed by the authority under which the authority has recorded that the petitioner's name does not appear in the survey report (list of riot affected persons) prepared by the authority at the relevant time and that therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any compensation. The petitioner is also informed that additional relief which was made available under the relief package, pursuant to the funds received from the Central Government, will not be given to the petitioner since he was not eligible as per the terms applicable to the said package.
4. Having considered the grievance of the petitioner, the petition was entertained and respondent authority was called upon to file its reply vide order dated 24.7.2012.
4.1 It appears that the respondent authorities have not entertained the petitioner's claim only on the ground that petitioner's name does not appear in the survey report. It is claimed by the respondents that since petitioner's name did not appear in the survey report, the petitioner is not considered eligible for payment of any compensation and in that view of the matter, the petitioner is also not considered eligible for payment of any compensation under additional relief package.
5. From the intimation issued by the office of District Collector, it appears that the City Mamlatdar was directed to examine the case of the petitioner and take necessary decision at the earliest.
It further appears that, in pursuance of the said intimation, the City Mamlatdar called the petitioner and considered his submissions. After having recorded details of petitioner's premises which suffered damage during the riots, the City Mamlatdar has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that that on earlier occasion, the petitioner was not paid any compensation and that therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief/compensation in view of the terms and conditions in the resolutions dated 16.3.2002 and 16.5.2002. Any other reason is not assigned by the authority in the said communication.
6. The Division Bench of this Court has, under judgment and order dated 7.9.2011 in Special Civil Application No.14664 of 2008 and connected matters, directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of persons affected during the riots and also directed the authorities to take appropriate and necessary decision expeditiously upon verification of all relevant documents.
7. In present case, it is noticed that the competent authority has not taken into account the FIR filed by the petitioner and has also not undertaken the exercise to find out the reasons as to why the petitioner's name was not included in the survey report. The competent authority ought to have examined the reasons in view of which the petitioner's name is not included, despite the fact that FIR dated 4.3.2002 lodged by the petitioner has been recorded in Rajkot City, 'B' Division Police Station. The stand taken by the respondent authorities to decline petitioner's claim only on the ground that petitioner's name is not included in the survey report, is not justified. If due to any mistake or lapse or clerical error, the name is not included or missed-out/left-out, then, without examining and without ascertaining the reasons for such lapse or mistake, only on the ground of omission, the application cannot be rejected.
8. Under the circumstances, present petition is disposed of with below mentioned directions:-
8.1 The competent authority shall examine the case of the petitioner, after calling for all and considering the details and material from the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner and after taking into account the directions issued by the Division Bench in judgment and order dated 7.9.2011 in Special Civil Application No.14664 of 2008 and connected matters and also after ascertaining the reasons as to why the name of the petitioner is left out from the survey report. Thereafter, appropriate decision shall be taken afresh without being influenced by earlier decision.
8.2 If necessary, the competent authority will hold an inquiry about the details submitted by the petitioner as regards damages/loss to his premises and on the basis of finding of such inquiry report, appropriate decision may be taken, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 10 weeks from service of certified copy of present order.
8.3 The petitioner is permitted to directly serve certified copy of present order to the respondent authorities and other competent authorities to take decision in the matter.
8.4 If any decision is not taken by the respondent authorities within time limit, as aforesaid, it would be open to the petitioner to file appropriate application and revive present petition.
With aforesaid clarifications, observations and directions, present petition stands disposed of. Notice is discharged.
(K.M. Thaker, J.) Bharat*