Smti.Aleykutty Thomas v. The Deputy Commissioner And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE [ CIRCUIT BENCH OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ] ** PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA WPA 248 of 2025 SMTI. ALEYKUTTY THOMAS ...

PETITIONER VS.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS ...

RESPONDENTS For the petitioner : Mr. Prohit Mohan Lal Mr. Pranay Prasun For the respondent No. 1 & 2 : Ms. Babita Das Heard on : June 16, 2025 Judgment on : June 16, 2025 JAY SENGUPTA, J.

1.

This is an application praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to provide alternative quarter to the petitioner till allotment of Tsunami Shelter to her.

2.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner's family was settled at the Campbell Bay in 1974. They were allotted land. They made construction there. In 2004, the property was severely affected by Tsunami. It was submerged. The petitioner prayed for Tsunami Shelter, but such representation was not

considered. In 2013, the petitioner again made a representation for such Tsunami Shelter. The Deputy Commissioner referred the matter to the Committee in question. But, the Committee did not consider the same. In 2016, the petitioner retired from government service. But, as her house at Campbell Bay had been affected by Tsunami, she had to remain at the Government accommodation. In 2018, a notice was given to her to vacate the quarter. In 2018, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order that till an action is taken on such Tsunami Shelter as prayed for by the petitioner, she would be entitled to stay at the said quarter. In 2021, the quarter became so dilapidated that the petitioner had to make a representation to the authority to do repairs. But, nothing was done.

Accordingly, she made another representation in 2023 requesting the Executive Engineer, APWD. But, no action was taken. In fact by a communication dated 17.04.2023 the Executive Engineer intimated that the government quarter was beyond repair and an alternative accommodation might have to be given to the petitioner. Yet, no such alternative accommodation has been provided to the petitioner. Nor has her representation been considered for Tsunami Shelter. 3.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State denies the allegations and submits as follows. As the petitioner was in government service and was staying at Port Blair, her case was not considered for Tsunami Shelter at Campbell Bay. However, no formal rejection is there regarding such representation. So far as the representation for repairs of the quarter is concerned, the last one was made only on 15.04.2025.

4.

It is quite dubitable as to whether simply because the petitioner had been employed in government service at Port Blair at the relevant time, her claim to a Tsunami Shelter at Campbell Bay would have to be rejected outright. Afterall the house that the petitioner she had at Campbell Bay was submerged due to Tsunami and that was her permanent shelter and after completing her government service, she was to return to such residence. Her quarter at Port Blair was supposed to be a temporary accommodation. If her temporary accommodation at Port Blair deprives her of the benefit of Tsunami Shelter for damage to her permanent abode at Campbell Bay, anomalous corollaries might flow requiring the government to provide residence to her even after retirement.

5.

Fortunately the petitioner's prayer for Tsunami Shelter has not been disposed of as yet. Therefore, let the same be considered by the concerned respondent authority respondent in accordance with law and at the earliest, preferably within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.

6.

It is pertinent to note that the Deputy Commissioner had rightly held in 2018 that till the petitioner's prayer for Tsunami Shelter was decided, she could stay at the government quarter in question, even after retirement. If such government quarter is in a dilapidated condition, as affirmed by the Executive Engineer, then either the same has to be brought to a habitable condition by the respondent authorities or an appropriate alternative accommodation has to be provided by the said

authorities till the petitioner's application for Tsunami Shelter is finally decided.

7.

In view of the above, let the representation of the petitioner dated 15.04.2025 made in this regard be considered by the respondent authorities and either the present accommodation be adequately repaired or an alternative accommodation be provided to the petitioner at the earliest, preferably within three weeks from the date of communication of this order.

8.

As the writ petition has been disposed of without calling for affidavits, the allegations leveled against the respondents shall be deemed to have been denied.

9.

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

10.

Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsels for the parties upon compliance of usual formalities. ( Jay Sengupta, J. )