Telangana High Court
PIL/46/2012 of Dalit Bahujan Sramik Union (DBSU), Vs Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, on 31 December 2012
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMEBR, TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR PUBLIC INTEREST
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMEBR,TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRAGHOSE
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.46 of 2012
Between:
Dalit Bahujan Sramik Union, rep., by its President,Yusufguda, Hyderabad & others.
… Petitioners
And
Union of India, rep., by its Secretary.Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & others.
… Respondents
This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSEANDTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI VILAS V. AFZULPURKARPUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.46 of 2012
ORDER:(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under the PublicInterest jurisdiction raising an issue in the matter that during the floodsin September, 2009 certain flood victims of Mahaboobnagar andKurnool Districts were denied compensation.
The petitioner stated that 12 persons, as shown in Annexure-I,were died during the said floods and therefore the compensationshould be paid to their legal heirs without insisting for FIR andPostmortem report. Further more, compensation should also be paid tothe 2 disabled persons, as shown in Annexure-II. He further stated thatcompensation for loss of household goods, clothing and utensilsshould also be paid to the 334 families in the said Districts.
The Joint Collector, Kurnool, has filed counter affidavit in thematter, wherein it is stated that out of the 334 families, compensationwas paid to 186 families and those who are not eligible, their nameshave been mentioned in Annexure-III. It is further stated that out of 349families in Kurnool District, the Government paid compensation to 211families as mentioned in Annexure-IV and 114 families are not eligiblesince their houses were not inundated. 20 families are not residents ofthe said villages, 2 families were absent at the time of enumeration andsince 2 families were tenants, the owners were paid compensationalong with others. It is further stated that the question that 40 families in Kurnool District did not receive compensation for loss of fishing boatsand nets is incorrect and it is stated that out of the names, which havebeen mentioned in Annexure-VI, 2 persons were paid ex gratia as perRules and out of the remaining 38 persons, 26 persons did not haveany valid licence, 5 persons obtained licence after the floods, 2persons were absent at the time of enumeration and 5 persons are nothaving licnece nor they are the members of the society. Therefore,they cannot have any claim. The allegation that 164 families inKurnool District did not receive essential commodities supplied by theGovernment was denied and stated that out of 164 persons, 85persons were provided essential commodities and the remaining 79persons were not supplied since they were not affected during 2009floods. It is further stated that the Government also distributed85,915.60 quintals of rice, 2147.64 kilo liters of kerosene, 4,295.25quintals of sugar, 4,295.25 quintals of dal and 4,29,525 packets ofPalmolive oil amongst the flood victims. It is further stated that thenorms of assistance to be paid to victims have already been fixed bythe Government of India as well as the Government of Andhra Pradeshand that the Government will follow such rules in these cases.
In view of the above averments made in the counter affidavit, thelearned Government Pleader submitted that no orders are necessary inthis Writ Petition at this belated stage.
We have considered all the pros and cons of the Writ Petition aswell as the counter affidavit filed before us. Since the norms havealready been fixed and implemented by the Government, as evidentfrom the counter filed by the Joint Collector, we do not find any reasonto pass any order in this Writ Petition and the same is accordinglydismissed. No order as to costs.
______________________________
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, CJ
Analysis
Date: 31.12.2012ES
__________________________
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J