Delhi High Court
Hukam Singh vs Ministry Of Home Affairs & Others on 14 December, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* 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
