Delhi High Court
Megh Singh vs Govt Of Nct Delhi on 2 May, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 2nd May, 2014.
+ LPA 348/2014 & CM No.7787/2014 (for condonation of 60 days
delay)
MEGH SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Mobin Akhter, Adv.
Versus
GOVT OF NCT DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 29th January, 2014 of
the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of W.P.(C) no.692/2014
filed by the appellant. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant
impugning the order dated 17th December, 2013 of the District Magistrate
(North-West) / Chairman Screening Committee for 1984 Riot Cases and
seeking a direction to the respondent Government of National Capital of
Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) to release the compensation claimed to the
appellant.
2. The case of the appellant is; (i) that he is a victim of the sikh riots
which had broken out in Delhi on 2nd November, 1984 in the wake of the
death of the Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi and in which riots several
people were killed and public property destroyed by the rioters; (ii) that his
LPA No.348/2014 Page 1 of 7
house and shop were also burnt and looted by the rioters and his wife
was also severally injured as a consequence of the attack of the rioters
and succumbed thereto; iii) that the Government implemented several reliefs
and rehabilitation packages for mitigating such hardships and for restoring
back the sense of confidence and security in the affected persons including
of sanctioning relief package under which compensation of Rs.10,000/- for
death and of Rs.2,000/- for injury and of Rs.10,000/- for complete
destruction of house was provided for; iv) that the appellant on 2nd / 7th
November, 2004 had given a written complaint in the Police Station
Mangolpuri giving details of the loss of the property total amounting to
Rs.32,000/- suffered by him; (v) that the appellant was then running a Coal
Depot which was burnt and looted by the rioters and the appellant made a
representation to the MCD giving details of loss of Rs.14,000/- and seeking
compensation against the loss of property; (vi) that the appellant's wife
received cheque no.565879 of Rs.2,000/- as initial ex-gratia compensation
from the Government of Delhi in the month of January, 1985 against
grievous injury caused to her; (vii) that the appellant on 20 th February, 2006
made an application for enhanced compensation stating that he had not
received any enhancement or fair compensation against the loss of property
LPA No.348/2014 Page 2 of 7
(house and shop) and the grievous injury caused to his wife; (viii) that
though the SDM Kanjhawala sought the verification and confirmation about
the appellant receiving previous amount of compensation of Rs.2,000/- by
way of cheque but no such confirmation was received; (ix) that the appellant
on 31st August, 2012 again made representation seeking enhancement but no
action was taken thereon also; (x) that the appellant ultimately filed W.P.(C)
No.3349/2013which was directed to be treated as a representation of the
appellant to be disposed of by a speaking order and in response whereto the
order dated 17th December, 2013 supra had been made.
3. The order dated 17th December, 2013 of the District Magistrate
(North-West) / Chairman Screening Committee for 1984 Riots Cases,
records / finds:-
(i) that though the appellant claimed that a sum of Rs.2,000/- was
paid to him towards compensation damage of property or
towards compensation for grievous injury to his wife, but the
said payment to the appellant had not been verified;
(ii) DCP (Anti Riot Cell) had given in writing that there was no
report of injury to Smt. Prakash Kaur (wife of the appellant) in
their record;
LPA No.348/2014 Page 3 of 7
(iii) SHO, Police Station Mangolpuri also in his report dated 11th
September, 2013 had confirmed that record pertaining to
complaints up to the year 2007 had been destroyed;
(iv) that the appellant had admitted / accepted that compensation of
property damage had been received by him and he was then
pursuing for the relief on account of injury to his wife Smt.
Prakash Kaur in the 1984 riots;
(v) the appellant could not give the date on which cheque
No.565879 for Rs.2,000/- towards compensation for property
was received by him;
(vi) that there was no record of encashment of the said cheque;
(viii) that the appellant had not produced any other proof of having
received Rs.2,000/- aforesaid;
(ix) that all the departments involved in the payment of relief had
given a negative report in the case except SHO PS Mangolpuri
who has stated that the relevant record had been destroyed in
2012;
(x) that though the appellant had produced a Medical Certificate
dated 6th November, 1984 of a Regular Medical Practitioner
LPA No.348/2014 Page 4 of 7
indicating the ailment of his wife but the said certificate had no
serial number and signature of the patient was also not clear;
(xi) that the appellant had not produced any document in support of
his claim, as were sought from him vide Office Notice dated
25th October, 2013;and,
(xii) that the appellant had also denied to sign on the report of the
enquiry conducted.
4. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition finding no
ground to substitute his own view for that of the designated authority,
especially when the order dated 17th December, 2013 supra was not found to
be perverse. It has also been observed that the photocopy of the Medical
Certificate dated 6th November, 1984 indicating the ailment of the
appellant's wife could not be relied upon as aforesaid.
5. This appeal itself is accompanied with an application for condonation
of 60 days delay in filing thereof. The reason given is of illiteracy, poverty
and old age of the appellant. However the allegations in this regard are
vague. The wife of the appellant has admittedly died and the appellant has
given the list of her legal representatives / his children. Thus it is not as if
the appellant had any occasion to suffer prejudice on account of his old age,
LPA No.348/2014 Page 5 of 7
illness and poverty; when the appellant could file appeal after a delay of 60
days, he could have similarly filed the appeal on time also.
6. Notwithstanding the delay, we have heard the counsel for the
appellant and the counsel for the respondent GNCTD appearing on advance
notice.
7. The only argument of the counsel for the appellant is that there is no
need for the Medical Certificate to be counter singed by the patient.
8. The counsel for the respondent has contended that from the very fact
that the wife of the appellant died in the year 2007, as borne out from the
factum of her making the application on 20.02.2006, it is evident that she
did not succumb to the injuries even if suffered in 1984, as the death is after
23 years of the riots.
9. We have perused the documents filed by the appellant. The Medical
Certificate is in printed language which provides that the signatures of the
patient are affixed thereto; however there are no signatures; moreover the
same is to the effect that the patient was suffering from "THAM Caute" and
that her absence from duty from 6th November, 1984 to 16th November,
1984 was absolutely necessary for restoration of her health. The said
Medical Certificate nowhere advances the case of the appellant, of his wife
LPA No.348/2014 Page 6 of 7
having suffered grievous injury in the riots. Else, there is nothing else to
suggest so. There is also no document to show loss to any property of the
appellant.
10. The most vital thing for the appellant to have proved was having
received compensation as a victim of the riots. Though the appellant claims
to have received Rs.2,000/- by cheque but has been unable to prove the
same. It appears that the wife of the appellant was employed that is why the
Medical Certificate of absence was required. No reason has been given as to
why the encashment of the said cheque is not reflected in the bank account
of the appellant or his wife.
11. Moreover the delay of the appellant at each and every stage is also
found to be fatal.
12. We therefore agree with the conclusion reached by the learned Single
Judge that there is no ground to interfere with the order dated 17th
December, 2013. Resultantly the appeal is dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
MAY 02, 2014
pp
