IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 7024 of 2007
Charanjit Singh ...... Petitioner
Vrs.
State of Jharkhand & ors. ...... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR SINHA
---------
For the petitioner: Mr. Ramakant Tiwari, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Vikas Pandey, JC to AG
For respondent no.7: Mr. Faiz-ur-Ramhan, C.G.C.
---------
04/ 21.11.2008
The present writ petition has been preferred for the
following reliefs:
(a) to quash letter no. U-130 18/142/2006 Delhi -1(NC)
dated 3rd July, 2007, issued from the Home Ministry,
Government of India, informing the Home Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, that the amount of rehabilitation
package is only to be paid to the victim of 1984 Sikh riot, who
have earlier been paid and rehabilitation package will not be
given to the persons, who did not receive earlier,
(b) to quash the letter no. U-13018/46/2005 Delhi-1
(NC) dated 16.1.06 issued by the Government of India giving
guideline that ex-gratia for damage uninsured
commercial/industrial property would be paid at the rate of
10 times the amount minus the amount already paid if the
meaning of the guideline will be understood as the version
given in letter dated 3rd July, 2007,
(c) to quash the Memo No. 3650 dated 2.11.2007 issued
by the L.R.D.C., Chas-cum-Public Information Officer to the
petitioner, informing that his claim has already been rejected
in the meeting of 13.8.2007 only due to the reason that he has
not received any amount earlier,
(d) to direct the respondents to pay 10 times either of
Rs.50,000/- or 10 times of 50% of loss amount whichever is
less to the petitioner, which have not been paid to the
petitioner till date in view of letter no.43/92-2346 dated
14.8.1992, issued by the Government of Bihar and as per
letter no. U-13018/46/2005/delhi 1(NC) dated 16.1.2006 and
(e) to direct the respondents to pay 10 times of assessed
loss (10 times of Rs.1,06,000/- for commercial loss + 10 times
of Rs.65000/- for loss of house property) to the petitioner in
view of letter no. U-13018/46/2005/delhi 1(NC) dated
16.1.2006 as some of similarly situated persons have been
provided by the authority.
2.
The case of the petitioner is that for the riot, which took
place in the year, 1984, he was entitled to rehabilitation
package, which was not granted to him.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that he applied in the year, 1992 pursuant to the applications
being invited by the State Government, which, according to
him, has not even been disposed of nor communicated.
Be that as it may the admitted position remains that
this writ petition has been filed in the year 2007 i.e. after a
lapse of 23 years after the 1984 riot and 15 years after the
application and thus it suffers from gross latches and delay.
Secondly the petitioner has referred to the impugned order
dated 24.11.2007 wherein the reasons have been assigned.
Clause 3(ix) of the circular dated 16.1.2006 reads as under:
“3. The Governments of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh,
Chhatisgarh, Haryana, Bihar, Jharkhand, J & K, Himachal Pradesh,
Orissa, Maharashtra, Uttaranchal, Punjab & NCT of Delhi are
requested to take immediate necessary steps to grant ex-gratia and
other assistance to the victims of 1984 riots as per the following
guidelines:
xx xx xx
(ix) In cases where the claims are supported by proof of having
received the amount of compensation paid by the State Governments
earlier, that may be considered as adequate and no additional proof
may be required. It would be ensured that the claims are not rejected
on technical/flimsy grounds.”
The reasons in the impugned order dated 24.11.2007
for rejecting the application of the petitioner for rehabilitation
package is the aforesaid clause. Unless there is a proof of
having received an amount of compensation paid by the State
Government earlier, the petitioner has no claim for the
Rehabilitation Package, as granted by the Central
Government.
Even otherwise at this belated stage, this writ petition
cannot be entertained. This writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed being devoid of any merits but without any order as
to costs.
(Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.)
A.K.Verma/