Leave to amend prayer clause. The amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Heard Mr. Kazi, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Yagnik, learned AGP, for the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 and Mr. Desai, learned advocate for the respondent No.2.
3. The petitioner has taken out present petition seeking below mentioned relief: “7(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to award compensation towards loss caused to the petitioner in the 2002 communal riots.
(a)(1) Quash and set aside the order dated 27.6.2012 passed by the City Mamlatdar, Ahmedabad.”
4. 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. 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 15.4.2002, the petitioner had filed FIR at Kalupur 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, at the earliest. 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 27.6.2012 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.
5. Having considered the grievance of the petitioner, the petition was entertained and respondent authority was called upon to file its reply vide order dated 9.4.2012. In reply to the notice, the respondent authority has filed reply affidavit wherein it is, inter alia, stated that: “6. I respectfully say and submit that these details will go to say that since, the petitioners were never in the list of “Riot affected persons”, as prepared in the year 2002 they did not get any compensation. The petitioners were therefore not granted any compensation.
9. I respectfully say and submit that the compensation was to be given in the following categories.
(i) In the case of death: Rs.2.00 lac., which was finally amended by Govt. Government Resolution dated 23.04.2002 to Rs.1,50,000/.
(ii) In the case of permanent disability: From Rs.5,000/ to up to Rs.50,000/.
(iii) In case of minor injury: from Rs.1,000 to up to Rs.5,000/.
I state that the office of the collector, Ahmedabad had prepared the list of Riots affected persons based on the Government guidelines in the terms of Government Resolutions. ....
10. I respectfully say and submit that thereafter on 11.03.2002, the State Government issued another Government Resolution. This Government Resolution pertains to providing financial aid to persons who had suffered in terms of the loss earning assets.
11. I respectfully say and submit that criteria came to be evolved for providing financial aid to those who have suffered in terms of the loss to the properties which were categorized for the assets of their livelihood “Loss of Earning Assets”.
12. I respectfully say and submit that, in view of the aforesaid Government decision, those persons, whose commercial properties were affected, were to be paid compensation up to Rs.10,000/. ....
13. I respectfully say and submit that, based on the aforesaid Government Resolutions, the office of the collector, Ahmedabad carried out detailed survey and inquiry in the year 2002 itself for identifying the Riot affected persons who were entitled to get financial aid. I state that the following were the categories of providing compensation.
(1) Financial aid to the family members – legal heirs of the persons who died;
(2) Financial aid to the persons who had suffered injuries;
(3) Financial aid to the persons who had suffered damage to their residential property; and
(4) Financial assistance to the persons who had suffered damages to their commercial property / assets from which they were earning.
14. I respectfully say and submit that a doortodoor survey was carried out in a riot affected areas by the terms of the office of the collector and on extensive survey and details collected from the family members of the deceased, the family members of the injured person or injured person themselves and from those persons whose commercial property was damaged. I state that accordingly, an exhaustive list came to be prepared with respect to riot affected persons of all the categories. I state that the survey team found following details:
(1) In the city of Ahmedabad, the following cases came to be notice of the survey Team:
(1) Number of death cases – 503,
(2) Injury cases – 1327
(3) Loss to the residential property – 13,204
(4) Loss to the assets meant for earning – 7590
15. I respectfully say and submit that the survey team had identified legal heirs of deceased a also the names of injured persons as also the persons in the category of those who have suffered in terms of their residential property or in terms of their commercial property.
I respectfully say and submit that, thus the criteria for providing financial aid, was the list as prepared in 2002. I state that there has not been addition or deletion in the said list in the city of Ahmedabad and rural area of Ahmedabad District.
16. I respectfully say and submit that, on 27.04.2007, the Government of India decided to provide additional exgratia relief to the victims of the communal riots of 2002. The details of packages, declared on 27.04.2007, are as under:
(i) In case of death, involving 1169 cases, an ex gratia assistance of Rs.3.5 lakhs would be paid tin addition to the assistance already given by the State Government.
(ii) In case of injury, involving 2548 cases, ex gratia assistance of Rs.1.25 lakhs would be paid minus the assistance given by the State Government.
(iii) For damage of residential property and uninsured commercial industrial property, an exgratia of 10 times the amount given by the State Government less amount already paid.
I respectfully say and submit that the figures as indicated above are of the riots affected persons of entire state of Gujarat. ....
17. I respectfully say and submit that, as stated above, Government of India decided to provide additional relief to the riot affected persons. The Government of India, therefore, sent a letter dated 12.09.2007, to the state Government. ....
I further respectfully say and submit that, by the said letter, the Government of India, initially indicated two categories of beneficiaries i.e. categories of cases of injury. I state that providing additional assistance was on the basis of the list already submitted by the office of the collector to Government of India through state Government of Gujarat.”
5.1 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.
6. From the intimation dated 1.10.2011 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 got affected 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 under the additional relief pursuant to the funds released by the Central Government. Any other reason is not assigned by the authority in the said communication.
7. 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.
8. 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 is 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 lodged by the petitioner has been recorded in the Kalupur police station since April2002. 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 missedout/leftout, then, without examining and without finding out the reasons for such lapse or mistake, only on the ground of omission, the application cannot be rejected.
9. Under the circumstances, present petition is disposed of with below mentioned directions:
9.1 The competent authority shall examine the case of the petitioner, after calling necessary 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, appropriate decision shall be taken afresh.
9.2 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.
9.3 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.
9.4 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.) kdc