Kerala High Court
S.Saju vs State Of Kerala on 22 November, 2013
Author: Babu Mathew P. Joseph
Bench: Babu Mathew P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1935
WP(C).No. 19081 of 2007 (V)
----------------------------
PETITIONERS:
1. S.SAJU,
PADEETTADATH VEEDU, ALAPPADU, CHERIYAZHEEKKAL P.O.
M/S/ INFONET COMPUTERS, KUZHITHURA P.O., KUZHITHURA.
2. P.K.VIMALAN,
PUTHUMANNEL VEEDU, ALUMKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY
P.K.V. HARITHA ORGANIC MANURE UNIT, KARUNAGAPPALLY.
3. AJAYAKUMAR G.,
VALEL, AZHEEKKAL P.O., PRAYAR
SREE SASTHA BOAT BUILDERS, AZHEEKKAL.
4. SANTHOSH KUMAR V.,
VALEL, AZHEEKKAL P.O., PRAYAR
BOAT BUILDERS, AZHEEKKAL.
5. CHANDRAN,
SWARNA MANDIRAM, AZHEEKKAL P.O., PRAYAR P.O.
M/S.S. M.INDUSTRIES, AZHEEKKAL.
6. RAMLA K.,
VAYALISSERRIL, AZHEEKKAL P.O., (PRAYAR
CATTLE SHED UNIT).
7. SELEENA R.,
THEKKA VEEDU, KUZHITHURA P.O.
8. PREM KUMAR,
VATTAPARAMBIL, AZHEEKKAL P.O., PRAYAR
FIBRE BOAT UNIT, AZHEEKKAL.
9. SHEELA,
MUNDAKATHIL, KIZHAKKEMATHASSERIL, AZHEEKKAL
PRAYAR /P/O., KAUMARI MEMORIAL FLOUR MILL, AZHEEKKAL.
10. B.SAGAR,
THEKKEYATTATHU, AZHEEKKAL P.O., PRAYAR P.O.
BY ADVS.SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU
SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD
SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA)
SRI.V.N.SASIDHARAN
WPC 19081/2007
RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.
2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DISASTER MANAGEMENT, (REVENUE SLMC DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES,
KERALA, VIKAS BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM.
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOLLAM.
5. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KOLLAM.
R BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI VIJU THOMAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 19081/2007
APPENDIX:
PETITIONERS' EXTS:
P1: A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. K.3 146/05 FORWARDED BY THE GENERAL
MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES TO DISTRICT COLECLTOR.
P1(A): A TRUE COPY OF REPORT AND PERFORMA SHOWING NAME OF UNITS,
NATURE OF ACTIVITIES, CALAMITY AFFECTEDD, TOTAL AMOUNT OF DAMAGES
ETC.
P2: A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONERS ON 2.4.07.
P3: A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT. 27.3.2007 SENT BY THE GENERAL MANAGER.
P4: A TRUE COPY OF TSUNAMI REHABLITATION SCHEME PUBLISHED BY 1ST
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXTS:
R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LEETER CONTAINING THE CLARIFICATIONS WITH
REGARD TO THE PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION UNDER TRP ISSUED BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF INDIA.
R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. G.O.(MS) NO.284/07/DMD
DTD.2.8.07.
R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE RAJIV GANDHI REHABILITATION PACKAGE FOR
TSUNAMI AFFECTED AREAS.
KS.
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, J.
= = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = ==
W.P.(C)No.19081 of 2007-V
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 22nd day of November,2013
JUDGMENT
This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners for the loss sustained by them on account of Tsunami that occurred on 26.12.2004.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 5.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the Tsunami various units of Small Scale Industry, for short, SSI units, and units of Prime Minister's Rozgar Yojana, for short, PMRY units, suffered losses as described in Ext.P1(a) document prepared by the 5th respondent. The losses claimed to have been suffered by the petitioners are stated WPC 19081/2007 2 in paragraph 7 of the original petition. The Government of Kerala had formulated various schemes as part of calamity relief for rehabilitating the people in different sectors who suffered various losses as a result of Tsunami. Ext.P4 gives a vivid picture with regard to various schemes so formulated by the Government for rehabilitating the Tsunami affected people. But, the persons like the petitioners who were badly affected by Tsunami had not been included by the Government in such schemes. Therefore, they were not given any compensation which was received by various sectors of people who suffered losses as a result of Tsunami. The petitioners and similarly placed persons who were badly affected by Tsunami are also entitled to compensation as given to others. If the petitioners and similarly placed persons are treated differently by the Government which will be highly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Going by the counter affidavits filed by different respondents, it could be seen that there is no WPC 19081/2007 3 dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioners and other similarly placed persons had suffered losses in the Tsunami. The reason which can be inferred from the statements made by the respondents in their counter affidavits for not paying compensation to the petitioners and other similarly placed persons who were running SSI units and PMRY units is that these units happened to be omitted in the rehabilitation schemes formulated by the Union and the State Governments. In fact, the Industries Department of the State had assessed the losses and the compensation to be paid to the petitioners and similarly placed persons and sent reports to the concerned authorities as evident from Ext.P3 letter issued by the 5threspondent to the 2ndpetitioner. The Government of Kerala had spent hundreds of crores of rupees for rehabilitating various sectors who suffered losses on account of Tsunami as could be seen from Ext.P4 published by the Government explaining the details of the schemes formulated for rehabilitating various affected WPC 19081/2007 4 sectors. The total amount accounted for those schemes is Rs.1441.75 crores. As far as the petitioners and other similarly placed persons are concerned, they were assessed to have suffered losses only to the tune of Rs.27,52,500/- as noted in Ext.P3. At a time when the Government had chosen to help and rehabilitate various sectors affected by Tsunami, they had omitted to include the petitioners and other similarly placed persons without any tangible or valid reason, even though the amount which would be incurred for helping them is only a meagre one when compared to the amount spent. Therefore, the learned counsel prays for directing the first respondent Government to consider the case of the petitioners and other similarly placed persons sympathetically enabling them to realise compensation for the losses suffered by their SSI and PMRY units.
4. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th respondent District Collector explains the steps taken for rehabilitating the sectors affected by Tsunami. It also deals WPC 19081/2007 5 with the case of the SSI and PMRY units. It is specifically stated in this counter affidavit that as directed by the Government a detailed report in respect of SSI and PMRY units had been submitted to the Government as per letter dated 4.4.2007 of the 4th respondent requesting to issue appropriate orders. Even though counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents 2,3 and 4, none of them show a valid ground for excluding the SSI and PMRY units from the schemes formulated by the Government. The SSI and PMRY units are not run by big guns in the industries sector. They are being run by ordinary people. When considering the different classes of people who received protection and benefits under various rehabilitating schemes formulated by the Government, there is no rhyme or reason for excluding the petitioners and other similarly placed persons from such benefits.
5. Having heard both the sides and considering the matter, this Court, no doubt, is left with a strong opinion that WPC 19081/2007 6 the Government should have included these SSI and PMRY units in the rehabilitation schemes formulated by the Government for helping and protecting various sectors affected by Tsunami. Therefore, this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioners and other similarly placed persons sympathetically in the light of the observations made in this judgment. For that purpose, the petitioners should be given an opportunity to submit a representation before the first respondent detailing their grievances.
6. In the result, the petitioners are at liberty to submit a detailed representation before the first respondent Government within thirty days from today raising their grievances and contentions and claiming compensation for the losses suffered by them as a result of Tsunami. If such a representation is received, it shall be considered by the first respondent sympathetically in the light of the WPC 19081/2007 7 observations made in this judgment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the same. The petitioners shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard by the first respondent before disposing of the representation. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the first respondent for compliance.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE ks.
True copy
P.S.to Judge
WPC 19081/2007 8
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH
JUDGE
ks.