Allowed

Sumar Ali Mondal and 153 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC12 Sept 2022WP(C)/555/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Court observed that the prayer for an additional Rs. 30,000/ per family could not be accepted as the rejection stemmed from the Prime Minister's Office, not the Deputy Commissioner. The petition was closed with liberty to approach the Court separately against the rejection by the Prime Minister's Office.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition stands closed. Liberty conceded to approach the Court separately against the rejection by the Prime Minister's Office.

Sumar Ali Mondal and 153 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010007522016

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/555/2016

¶5

SUMAR ALI MONDAL and 153 ORS S/O. LT. SOKMAT ALI MANDAL

¶6

2: HUSSAIN ALI

¶7

S/O. KADER ALI

¶8

3: ROHIJUDDIN SK. S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN

¶9

4: HAMJA SK. S/O. LT. SIRAJ ALI

¶10

5: AKKES ALI

¶11

S/O. KUDDU ALI

¶12

6: BOSER ALI

¶13

S/O. JOLIL SK.

¶14

7: OMAR ALI

¶15

S/O. HUSSAIN ALI

¶16

8: MRS. SAKINA BEWA

¶17

W/O. ABAR ALI

¶18

9: MRS. SHABLA BEWA

¶19

Page No.# 2/6

¶20

W/O. SHAMUDDIN

¶21

10: TOSER ALI S/O. LT. JOLIL SK. 11: MRS AIVAN BEWA W/O. MOYEJUDDIN 12: MRS. AJIRON BEWA W/O. LT. AJGOR ALI

¶22

13: BASIRON BEWA W/O. JOLIL

¶23

14: MRS. SANTI BEWA W/O. LT. MOSIR MONDAL 15: HAJRA BEWA W/O. ROZAB ALI

¶24

16: MRS. JOMILA BEWA W/O. SOKMOT ALI

¶25

17: MRS. JAHELA BIBI W/O. JEHARUDDIN 18: ZAMIRAN BEWA W/O. AMIRUDDIN. 19: MRS. YESIRON W/O. AZGAR ALI

¶26

20: MRS. LIFLIFA W/O. AHMED ALI SK.

Page No.# 3/6

21: MRS. RAJIA BEWA

W/O. LT. JOBED ALI

22: MISS AMINA BIBI

D/O. ALEKJAN BEWA

23: MRS. ALEHA BEWA W/O. INDRA.

¶33

24: MD. NASEN ALI S/O. LT. EAR ALI

¶34

25: MRS. SARIVAN BEWA

W/O. MOYEJUDDIN

26: NOBIRUDDIN SK

W/O. AKBAR ALI.

27: MRS. SHAERA BEWA W/O. LT. AZO SK.

28: MRS. KUSUM BIBI

W/O. ABUL ALI

29: MR MOIDUL SK

S/O. LT. NOSER ALI

30: MD. SOIDUL SK. S/O. LT. NOSER AL

¶44

VERSUS

¶45

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

¶46

REP. BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE and DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT., RELIEF AND REHABILITATION BRANCH, DISPUR, GHY.-06.

¶47

Page No.# 4/6

¶48

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I A TALUKDAR

¶49

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM R-1-4

¶50

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶51

ORDER

¶52

Date : 12-09-2022

¶53

Heard Mr. I.A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. M. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 4, being the Addl. Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Revenue and Disaster Management Department and the Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar, respectively. Also heard Mr. R. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2, being the Accountant General (AQE), Assam and Ms. R.B. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, being the authorities under the BTC, Kokrajhar.

¶54

The 154 writ petitioners before the Court claim to be victims of ethnic violence that took place in the State of Assam in the year 2012 in the Kokrajhar district. The petitioners are aggrieved to the extent that they were paid an amount of Rs. 22,700/- per family whereas some other families who were also victims of similar nature have been paid a total amount of Rs. 52,500/-. Accordingly, the petitioners claim that they have been discriminated.

¶55

The Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar has provided an information to the Court by means of an parawise comment, wherein it is stated that in respect of the ethnic violence that took place in the year 2012, the Government of Assam

¶56

Page No.# 5/6

¶57

had provided a sum of Rs. 22,700/- along with three bundles of GCUI sheets to each of the affected families of the violence. It is also stated that over and above the amount of Rs. 22,700/- provided by the Government of Assam, an additional amount of Rs. 30,000/- per family were also provided from the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund to such families although the amount released from the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund was disbursed through the Deputy Commissioner. A further stand is taken that the authorities under the Government of Assam are not competent to provide any amount from the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund.

¶58

Accordingly, on the claim of the petitioners for the additional amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund, the Deputy Commissioner by his letter No. KRR.15/2016/5 dated 23.02.2016 had submitted a proposal for the victims like that of the petitioners and the proposal was submitted before the Prime Minister’s Office vide No. KRR.21/2013/50 dated 09.05.2014. But, however, in respect of such proposal submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar, the Prime Minister’s Office vide a communication No. 82/15008/292/PMF/(Vol.IV) dated 26.05.2014 had turned down the proposal and it was intimated that the earlier proposal made by the Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar provided vide letter No. KRR.2/2013/34 dated 09.04.2013 was considered to be the last and the final proposal to be accepted by the Prime Minister’s Office.

¶59

In view of such stand of the Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar, we are of the view that the prayer made in this writ petition for a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar for payment of the additional 30,000/- per family to the petitioners cannot be accepted in the present form inasmuch as, the rejection had been made by the Office of the Prime Minister and not by the

¶60

Page No.# 6/6

¶61

Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar.

¶62

Accordingly, writ petition stands closed. But, however, liberty is given to the petitioners if so advised to approach the Court against the rejection by the Prime Minister’s Office by their letter dated 26.05.2014. The parawise comments including the documents relied and indicated herein are kept on record.

¶63

JUDGE

¶64

Comparing Assistant

Sumar Ali Mondal and 153 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumar Ali Mondal and 153 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Aminur Islam Vs the State of Assam and 13 Ors.

Assam P.W.D Contractors Assocation Vs the State of Assam and 17 Ors.

Abdul Aziz Vs the State of Assam and 14 Ors.

Motiur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Himangshu Das Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Aynal Haque and 12 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.