M.A.Ullas vs State Of Kerala on 5 June, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 9914 of 2007(E)


1. M.A.ULLAS, AGED 45, S/O.M.K.AMBUJAM,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. P.THANKACHI, WIFE OF M.A.ULLAS,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

3. THE TAHSILDAR, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK,

4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :05/06/2008

 O R D E R
                        S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
                ------------------------------------
                   W.P.(C)No.9914 OF 2007
              ----------------------------------------
                Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008

                            JUDGMENT

The petitioners claim to be the victims of the Tsunami

disaster. They are aggrieved by non-payment of compensation

which was being distributed by the Government to the Tsunami

victims. In an identical Writ Petition (C)No.4392/08, this Court

passed the following judgment.

“Petitioners submit that they are Tsunami
victims and have suffered huge loss. According to the
petitioners, similarly situated victims got their cases
considered by the Permanent Lok Adalath following
Ext.P9 judgment of this court and that awards have
been passed granting them compensation. It is
submitted that their case being similar to the
beneficiaries of Ext.P9 judgment, they should also be
given freedom to pursue their claim before the
Permanent Lok Adalath.

2. Having gone through the writ petition and
on hearing the learned counsel for the writ petitioners
and the learned Government Pleader, I am satisfied
that the case of the petitioners are also liable to be
considered by the 5th respondent.

Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition
directing that in case the petitioners have any
grievance left, it will be open to them to take up their

W.P.(c)No.9914/07 2

case also with the 5th respondent, who shall promptly
deal with the case of the petitioners in accordance
with law.”

In view of the same, I feel that this writ petition can also

be disposed of with the same directions as in that judgment.

Ordered accordingly.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd

W.P.(c)No.9914/07 3