Bundu Qureshi v. Union Of India And ORS.

$~40 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 8016/2018 BUNDU QURESHI ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr Vivek Yadav, Mr Rashid Azam and Mr Mazar Anis, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr Arun Bhardwaj, Mr Prateek and Mr Gauraan, Advocates for R-1.

Mr Anjum Javed, ASC, GNCTD with Mr Devendra Kumar and Mr Faran Ahmed, Advocates with SI Vivek Kumar,

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 01.08.2018 CM No.30741/2018 1.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 8016/2018 2.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:- "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent no 1 & 2 to compensate the petitioner to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- (three lakhs) ; or (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent no 1 & 2 to compensate the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh);"

3.

The petitioner states that he is a victim of riots that took place in Block No.19, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi on 25.10.2014 on the eve of the festival of Bhaiya Dooj. The petitioner is a street vendor and also owns a meat shop in front of Block No.19, Trilokpuri. The petitioner claims that on 25.10.2014 at about 11:45 AM he along with certain other persons of community were attacked by mob of about 25-30 persons. He claims that the said mob also caused severe damage to the petitioner's property; his entire stock of fruits, scraps of meat and chicken were taken away and the mob also set fire to his property. It is stated that a FIR in regard has been registered and the said case is pending.

4.

In view of the loss suffered by the petitioner, he was granted compensation of `25,000/-.

5.

The petitioner is aged about 70 years and it is stated that he is unable to rehabilitate himself with the meagre compensation that has been awarded to him. It is also contended that other victims of the riots, who are similarly placed have been awarded a higher compensation of `1, 00,000/-. 6.

In view of the above, respondent no.2 is directed to reconsider the petitioner's case for enhanced compensation in view of the averments made in the petition and his mitigating circumstances. Respondent no.2 shall also examine whether a higher compensation has been provided to similarly placed persons.

7.

It is clarified that no further representations are required to be made by the petitioner and respondent no.2 shall take into account the averments made in the present petition for considering the petitioner's case for enhanced compensation.

8.

Respondent no.2 is requested to take an appropriate decision in this regard as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of eight weeks from today.

9.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid observations. 10.

Order dasti.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J AUGUST 01, 2018 MK