Shri.R.Karuppaiah And ANR v. The Lt.Governor And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/2/2025 [IA NO: CAN/1/2025] Shri R. Karuppaiah and Another Vs.
The Lieutenant Governor and Others Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the appellants Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondents January 31, 2025 [SR] Item No.3 1.
With the consent of the parties, appeal being MAT/2/2025 and connected application being CAN/1/2025 are treated as on day's list and finally heard today. 2.
The appeal is directed against the order dated 5th November, 2024 passed by learned Single Judge whereby giving certain reasons the connected writ petition was dismissed. 3.
On hearing learned advocate representing appellants, it appears that writ petitioners were not satisfied with the quantification of financial assistance as provided in terms of notification dated 12th August, 2015 for death of two persons caused due to falling of one Banyan tree.
4.
Admittedly, Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.1,50,000/- each) was paid to both the petitioners pursuant to the said notification dated 12th August, 2015 but the petitioners are not satisfied which triggered the connected writ petition.
5.
Main ground of challenge laid against the order dated 5th November, 2024 is discrimination on the part of the respondent authorities in releasing financial assistance in terms of the
notification dated 12th August, 2015. It has been agitated on behalf of the appellants that in similar cases financial assistance of higher amounts were released but in contradistinction to the same in the present case, a meagre amount of Rs.1,50,000/-has been paid to both the petitioners each. In addition thereto, it is also pointed out that affidavit-inreply was not filed on behalf of the petitioners but fact remains as it is contended on behalf of the respondent authorities that opportunity was given to file affidavit-in-reply. 6.
Since it is a case of quantification of financial assistance in terms of notification dated 12th August, 2015, we find that a chance needs to be given to the petitioners for filing of affidavitin-reply to the opposition filed by the respondents prior to final decision to be arrived at by the learned Single Judge. 7.
We have perused the order dated 5th November, 2024 where the learned Single Judge has observed that vires of the notification dated 12th August, 2015 was not assailed. However, a point of discrimination has been agitated before us and according to the petitioners, if they are permitted to file affidavit-in-reply, their case before the learned Single Judge might be improved.
8.
In view of aforesaid scenario, we permit the appellants/writ petitioners to file affidavit-in-reply by three weeks from date. However, we make it clear that beyond three weeks, no further time is to be granted to the appellants/writ petitioners. After the period as fixed hereinabove for filing affidavit-in-reply, matter to appear before the learned Single Judge for final hearing of the writ petition.
9.
No further prayer is to be allowed by the court for extension of time to file affidavit-in-reply. 10.
With the above observations, the impugned order dated 5th November, 2024 is set aside. The appeal and the application stand disposed of.
11.
The writ petition stands revived.
12.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocate appearing for the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.
( Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. ) ( Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J. )