Bombay High CourtWP/7662/2015disposed offdismissed for default

Rajindersingh Gurmajsingh Sandhu v. Union Of India And Others

2016-02-29Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.M. Badar2 pages

1 WP7662.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT

AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7662 OF 2015 Rajindersingh S/o Gurmajsingh Sandhu .. Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others .. Respondents Shri Amol S. Gandhi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt. S. B. Deshpande, A. S. G. for the Respondent No. 1. Smt. S. S. Raut, A. G. P. for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM :

S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND A. M. BADAR, JJ.

DATE : 29TH FEBRUARY, 2016.

PER COURT :- 1.

Mr. Gandhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the son of the petitioner was informant of the Police. He use to provide valuable information to the Nanded Police and C. B. I. abut the terrorist. One of the terrorist Amarjitsingh Tholiya killed the son of the petitioner on 08.07.1994 and the F. I. R. bearing No. 211 of 1994 is also registered with regard to the same. The Assistant Director of Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, Nanded has issued certificate to the petitioner to the effect that petitioner and his son act as informant and providing information to the Government Agencies, therefore, the terrorist namely Amarjitsingh Tholiya killed the son of petitioner. The petitioner is paid Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) by the Government. The said amount is too meager. The Collector as well as the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad recommended and forwarded proposal to the respondent No. 2 for sanction of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs only) on account of the death of his son. The respondent does not have a uniform policy. Those whose

2 WP7662.15 next of kin died in riots were paid Rs. 25,00,000/-(Rs. Twenty Five Lacs only).

We have heard the learned A. G. P. and the learned A. S. G. 3.

It would not be possible for us to issue any particular direction with regard to the quantum of amount to be paid to the petitioner, however, as the proposal is already sent by the Collector, Nanded and the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad (Exh. H and Exh. I) to the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 shall take decision on the same, if, not already taken, expeditiously and preferably within six (6) months from today. 4.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. [ A. M. BADAR, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] sam/Feb.16