Dismissed

R.Balaji v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC17 Nov 2021WP/10823/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition for quashing an order rejecting compensation for a mechanized boat damaged in the 2004 Tsunami. Holding relief is not a right, the Court relied on the Tahsildar's finding that the petitioner's livelihood was unaffected and the boat was registered for harbour purposes, not fishing. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of impugned order dismissed; no compensation granted to the petitioner.

R.Balaji Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.10823 of 2016

¶5

R.Balaji ...Petitioner

¶6

¶7

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to State, Department of Fisheries, Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶8

2.The District Collector, Collectors' office, Ma Singaravelar Maligai, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to all for the records on the file of the 2 nd Respondent in his proceedings in O4/26869/2015 and Quash the Impugned Order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the 2 nd Respondent herein as highly illegal and further direct the Respondents to pay Financial Assistance / Compensation to the Petitioner for the loss incurred on account of the damage caused to the Petitioner's Boat “M.L. MANGALA” due to Tsunami High Tides on 26.12.2014.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Ashok

¶11

For Respondents: Mr.C.Jayaprakash Government Advocate

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The writ on hand has been instituted to quash the order of rejection dated 30.11.2015 for grant of compensation to the petitioner for loss of Mechanized boat during the Tsunami in the year 2004.

¶14

2.The petitioner is a fisherman, engaged in fishing and was owning a Mechanized Launch, which was used for fishing. The petitioner states that it is a registered motor launch under the

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

Harbour Craft Rules for the Port of Chennai for transportation, which was approved vide Licence No.28T dated 28.11.2001 issued by the Deputy Port Conservator, Chennai Port Trust. On 26.12.2004, the day of Tsunami High Tide, the boat was tied fastened at the Bharathi Dock. The mechanized boat was damaged due to high tides and the damage was huge and therefore, the petitioner submitted an application for grant of compensation under the Tsunami Relief Scheme.

¶17

3.The case of the petitioner was considered by the Collector of Chennai District, who in turn issued the impugned order based on the direction issued by this Court in WP.No.27001 of 2015 on 28.08.2015 to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner.

¶18

4.The facts placed by the petitioner was elaborately considered by the District Collector. The package sanctioned by the Government through Government Orders for mechanized boat was also considered. For repair and replacements, the Government sanctioned package and issued guidelines on the modalities for sanction and disbursement of relief in respect of the Tsunami victims. Considering all the facts and circumstances with reference to the Government guidelines in force, the District Collector form an opinion that the mechanized boat was not recommended for relief assistance by the high level committee, since it was not used for fishing. The boat had been registered in Chennai Port Trust under Harbour Craft Rules for plying inside the Harbour Water.

¶19

5.The Director of Fisheries has informed that the Government have not granted compensation and relief assistance to other fishermen, who utilized their boats in activities other than fishing. The Department of Fisheries / The Government have sanctioned the relief assistance only for the boats, which was engaged for fishing activities and damaged due to Tsunami. Beyond all these, the Tahsildar, Fort-Tondiarpet, Chennai in its report dated 29.09.2010 had reported that 'kDjhuh; thH;thjhuk; Rdhkpf;F gpwF ghjpg;gilatpy;iy vd bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwd;.'

¶20

6.Based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar and considering the fact that the boat was not used for fishing and used for other purposes and registered in Chennai Port Trust under Harbour Craft Rules for plying inside the Harbour Water and the request of the petitioner for grant of compensation was rejected.

¶21

7.This Court is of the considered opinion that the Tsunami Relief Fund is granted under the scheme with reference to the terms and conditions stipulated. Such relief cannot be claimed as a matter of right. However, such reliefs are to be granted to

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

the needy and eligible persons to mitigate the circumstances and not in respect of each and every damage of property or otherwise. The vital factor to be considered is that whether the livelihood on the person is affected or not and in the present case, the Tahsildar in its report categorically made a finding that the livelihood of the petitioner after Tsunami has not affected. Thus, the petitioner has not made any ground for grant of compensation and consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

¶29

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to State, Department of Fisheries, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2.The District Collector, Collectors' office, Ma Singaravelar Maligai, Chennai. +1cc to Mr.J.Ashok, Advocate, S.R.No.59386 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.59781

¶30

W.P.No.10823 of 2016

¶31

SMI(CO) SB(01/12/2021)

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Balaji v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Balaji v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anu Augustine Vs the Deputy Controller of

N.Thangarajan, Vs Assistant Engineer(Electrical)

Lupin Limited Vs Union of India

S.a.Parasuraman, Vs the Chairman

M/s.Harihar Alloys Private Ltd. Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and

M/s.Sri Balasubramania Mills Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and