* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11181/2009
HUKAM SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Abinash Kr. Mishra, Advocate.
versus
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS. .... Respondent
Through Ms. Poorva Nanawati, Adv. for UOI.
Mr. N. Waziri, standing counsel with Mr.
Shoaib Haider, Advocate for GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 14.12.2009 With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard for disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. The petitioner, Mr. Hukam Singh had applied for ex-gratia compensation on account of death of his two minor sons in 1984 riots.
3. The Government of NCT of Delhi has rejected the application of the petitioner for ex-gratia compensation on the ground that as per the scheme, no new claim for ex-gratia compensation for death or injury is being entertained after 16th January, 2006.
4. The respondent No.1, Union of India in their counter affidavit has clarified W.P.(C)11181/2009 Page 1 that if there were any pending or disputed cases, which were awaiting decisions for want of necessary evidence as on 16th January, 2006,, such cases can be considered, if they are finally accepted as genuine claims.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and his family members had filed FIR No. 486/ 1984 in Police Station Krishna Nagar about death of minor sons. The petitioner has stated that after 1984 riots, he had shifted to his native village in Bijnaur, Uttar Pradesh and came back to Delhi in 1990. The petitioner claims that he had moved an application seeking compensation on 30th August, 2005, and thus his claim was pending consideration on 16th January, 2006. The said averment made in paragraph 2.7.0. of the writ petition has not been specifically denied. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent, GNCTD states that this letter was not addressed to the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate. The question is not whether the letter was addressed to the concerned officer but is that whether this letter was written. Counsel for the petitioner in this connection has drawn my attention to the office notings obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005, in which reference has been made to some letters written by the petitioner in 2005.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned order dated 15 th March, 2007 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Preet Vihar to reexamine the case of the petitioner and give specific findings whether the petitioner's case is covered under the clause, which stipulates that if there were any W.P.(C)11181/2009 Page 2 pending or disputed cases, which were awaiting decision for want of necessary evidence, such cases can be considered, if they were finally accepted as genuine claims. The aforesaid decision will be taken within six months after giving notice to the petitioner at his address mentioned in the writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. It is clarified that whether the claim of the petitioner is genuine will be decided by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the observations made above will not be binding on the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned.
Dasti.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
DECEMBER 14, 2009 NA W.P.(C)11181/2009 Page 3