K.Rangaiah Chettiyar v. The Union Of India And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/36/2024 K. Rangaiah Chettiyar Vs.

The Union of India and others Mr. KMB Jayapal ... for the appellant Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents August 05, 2024 [SR] Item no.19 This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated April 10, 2024, whereby, the appellant's writ petition being WPA/664/2002 was dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court.

The appellant/writ petitioner claims to be a victim of 2004 Tsunami. He says that he is entitled to benefits under the Rajiv Gandhi Rehabilitation Package for Tsunami Affected Areas. He apparently took loan from Andaman and Nicobar Island Integrated Development Corporation Limited (ANIIDCO) for setting up a flour mill. However, his business was badly affected by Tsunami.

Since his representations to the competent authority claiming benefit of the aforesaid package were not receiving attention and ANIIDCO was pressing for repayment of the loan, the appellant paid back the entire loan along with interest to ANIIDCO.

However, on a correct interpretation of the rehabilitation package, the appellant should be reimbursed the entire amount that he has repaid to the ANIIDCO.

With the aforesaid case, the appellant approached the learned Single Judge in the present round of litigation. We are not adverting to the earlier rounds of litigation as the same may not be relevant at this point of time.

Learned Single Judge on a consideration of the relevant clause of the rehabilitation package found that since the total outstanding loan in so far as the writ petitioner is concerned, as on December 26, 2004, was between Rs. 2.00 lakhs and Rs.5.00 lakhs, the writ petitioner was entitled to waiver of normal interest for three years on the outstanding loan amount but not entitled to waiver of penal interest. Had the outstanding loan amount been less than Rs.2.00 lakhs, the scheme would have permitted waiver of the entire loan amount, but that was not the case.

The learned Judge however noted that the petitioner would be entitled to benefit of Rs.29,268/- which benefit he has already received. Accordingly, learned Judge dismissed the writ petitioner without granting any relief.

Being aggrieved, the appellant writ petitioner has approached this Court by way of this appeal.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. We have seen the relevant clauses of the concerned Rehabilitation Package. We are, in principle, in agreement with the learned Single Judge.

However, learned advocate for the appellant petitioner says that several representations of the appellant are pending before the competent authority in the Administration. The appellant was badly affected by the Tsunami. He is claiming benefit under the rehabilitation package. The authorities may be directed to reconsider his claim.

Mr.Shatadru Chakraborty, learned counsel representing the respondents leaves the matter to the Court. We request the competent authority in the Administration to revisit the issue of compensation or relief payable to the appellant and take once and for all, a final decision regarding the amount of further benefit, if any, that the appellant may be entitled to under the concerned packages.

We pass this order because we find from the papers on record, certain documents emanating from certain departments of the Government addressed to the other departments, containing a request to consider the appellant's claim sympathetically.

We clarify that while we are directing reconsideration of the appellant's claim, we are not binding the hands of the respondent authorities in any particular manner. They will be at liberty to take an appropriate decision, in accordance with law and the applicable packages, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the appellant or his authorised representative. Let this exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order by the appellant to the relevant officer in the Administration. MAT/36/2024 is disposed of accordingly.

( Arijit Banerjee J.) ( Sugato Majumdar, J. )