Abdul Rajak Khan v. Union Of India And ANR.

$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 383/2018 ABDUL RAZAK KHAN ..... Petitioner Through:

Md. Mobin Akhtar, Advocate.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr Gaurang Kanth, CGSC with Ms Eshita Baruah, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 16.01.2018 CM No. 1611/2018 1.

Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 383/2018 3.

The petitioner is a senior citizen and has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:- "A) Direct the respondents to give each and every details the steps taken by the Embassy of India at Riyad in the death compensation case of the petitioner's son or B) If the death compensation has been received by the Embassy of India at Riyad, then, the respondent be directed to release the said amount to the petitioner."

4.

The petitioner's son - who was a Safety Engineer - had taken up employment in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is stated that he met with the fatal accident on 10.08.2010 in Al Jubail, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 5.

The petitioner received a letter dated 19.03.2011 from the Indian Embassy at Riyad enclosing therewith the death certificate of the petitioner's son. The Indian Embassy also informed the petitioner that they had received information from Saudi Foreign Ministry that one Mr Tanwar (nationality unknown) was 100% responsible for death of the petitioner's son. The Indian Embassy advised the petitioner that he could take up the case for death compensation with the Saudi Authorities and also volunteered to assist the petitioner in the process. The petitioner elected to pursue the case through the Indian Embassy and furnished the required Power of Attorney in favour of Ambassador of India in Riyad with the power to nominate the officers of the Embassy.

6.

The petitioner's grievance is that despite several years and despite pursuing with the relevant authorities, the petitioner has neither received any compensation nor received any information as to the current status of the case.

7.

Mr Kanth, learned counsel appearing for respondent states, on instructions, that the Indian Embassy had been following up with the Saudi Authorities and it has now been informed that the Saudi Authorities have misplaced the relevant file pertaining to the case. He states that the Indian Embassy Officials are pursuing with the Saudi Authorities for further action. 8.

In view of the above statement, no further orders need to be passed in

this petition except to direct that the respondents to keep the petitioner apprised of the exact status of the case and further also inform him of the steps being taken from time to time. It is so directed. 9.

The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. 10.

Order dasti.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J JANUARY 16, 2018 RK