2002 Godhra Riots: Gujarat High Court Rejects Victim's Plea For Additional Ex-Gratia Compensation Citing 'General & Vague' Particulars

The Gujarat High Court dismissed a petition seeking additional ex-gratia compensation under the relief and rehabilitation packages announced for victims of the 2002 Post Godhra train burning communal riots, observing that the prayers were “general and vague in nature not specifying any categories or any deficiencies".The petitioner was a victim of mob fury and the communal riots, which had occurred in the State in 2002. Looking at the magnitude of the riots, 2002, the State Government as well as the Central Government announced various relief packages for the victims of the riots. Applications were invited for, and damages were assessed and accordingly, the victims were recommended for financial assistance under various categories. Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee held that in the absence of material particulars and specific entitlement, no writ of mandamus could be issued directing implementation of government resolutions in a general manner. The Court concluded that the petition was “devoid of merits.”"The whole tenor of the writ petition is in the nature of public interest. By affidavit-in-reply, the State Government has clearly stated that the State Government had already disbursed more than 99% of the amounts to the relief victims so received from the Central Government and that the amounts, which could not be disbursed was for various reasons like non-availability of the person on the given address and non-fulfillment of requirement certain claimants and nonfurnishing of the relevant documents required under the policy etc. In the present case, the petitioner has been beneficiary of the State Government policy in terms of the Government Resolutions dated 16.03.2002 and 16.05.2002". The petitioner, Mehboob Fakhruddin Vakharia, had approached the Court seeking directions to the State and Central Governments to implement decisions taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs regarding additional ex-gratia payment towards relief and rehabilitation of victims of the 2002 communal riots.It was the petitioner's case that he was running M/s Vakharia Glass Works at Narol, Ahmedabad, and that during the 2002 riots, his factory was looted and damaged, resulting in loss of approximately ₹9,25,000/-. He submitted that he had made an application to the Collector on 23 May 2002 and that damage was assessed. He relied upon a communication dated 27 April 2007 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs stating that the Central Government had decided to provide additional ex-gratia payment, including for damage to uninsured commercial property.Appearing for petitioner advocate Sikander Saiyed submitted that though the damage had been assessed and recommended, the petitioner had not received financial assistance under the additional relief declared by the Central Government and was therefore entitled to further compensation.Opposing the petition, learned AGP Mr. Mayank Chavda submitted that funds made available by the Central Government had already been disbursed to identified beneficiaries and that almost 99% of the amounts under the relief package had been distributed. He further submitted that the petitioner had opted for and availed loan facilities under the State Government's Government Resolutions dated 16.03.2002 and 16.05.2002 for rehabilitation of industrial and commercial establishments, and that no scheme existed for lump-sum or ex-gratia payment for commercial establishments under the State policy.After considering the submissions, the Court noted that damage to the petitioner's commercial establishment had been assessed at ₹2,10,000/- by the District Industries Centre and that a certificate-cum-loan recommendation letter had been issued accordingly. There is no dispute that the petitioner has received such certificate of damage and recommendation for loan. The petitioner had not challenged the assessment before any forum.The Court further observed that the writ petition, filed in 2009, merely sought general directions for implementation of government decisions without specifying any particular category of entitlement or deficiency in implementation. Holding that no material particulars were placed on record to justify issuance of mandamus, the Court dismissed the petition.Case title: Mehboob Fakhruddin Vakharia v State of Gujarat and othersCase no.: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8852 of 2009Appearance: MR SIKANDER SAIYED for the PetitionerMR MAYANK CHAVDA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1KSHITIJ M AMIN(7572) for the Respondent(s) No. 3Click Here To Read/Download Order

2002 Godhra Riots: Gujarat High Court Rejects Victim's Plea For Additional Ex-Gratia Compensation Citing 'General & Vague' Particulars

Ananya Tangri

Tags