ORDER Patnaik, J. -- 1. The petitioner filed a claim for compensation as a Bhopal Gas Victim describing himself to be Sheikh Mohd. The Deputy Welfare Commissioner while considering the claim of the petitioner found that in the old ration card produced by the petitioner and in the Tata Survey the victim had been described as Ishaq Mohd. Similarly, in the affidavit sworn by the petitioner before the Deputy Welfare Commissioner, the petitioner has been described as Ishaq Mohd. In none of the papers, there was name of Sheikh Mohd. On account of such discrepancies with regard to the name, the Deputy Welfare Commissioner, the Additional Welfare Commissioner and the Welfare Commissioner rejected the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Mr. Matloob Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was an illiterate person and in some of the documents produced before the Deputy Welfare Commissioner his name has been described as Ishaq Mohall and in some of the documents his name has been described as Sheikh Mohd. But in all the documents the father's name of both Sheikh Mohd. And Ishaq Mohd. has been described as Mohd. Jumman. He submitted that Sheikh Mohd, and Ishaq Mohd. therefore is one and the same person and the Deputy Welfare Commissioner, Additional Welfare Commissioner and the Welfare Commissioner ought not to have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that there was doubt about the identity of the claimant, when the petitioner had been paid interim compensation. 3. Mr. O.P. Namdeo, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that since a number of cases of non-genuine claimants were detected earlier, under the Action Plan approved by the Supreme Court and the procedure laid down by the Welfare Commissioner, the Deputy Welfare Commissioner is required to satisfy himself with the identity of the genuine claimant and where the identity of the claimant is in doubt, the Deputy Welfare Commissioner has to reject the claim. 4. 4. On a reading of the Action Plan as approved by the Supreme Court by order dated 26.10.2004 in IA No. 46-47 in Civil Appeal No. 3187-88 of 1988, we find that the following guidelines have been laid down for identification of the claimant by the Deputy Welfare Commissioner: "On the stipulated date fixed for personal appearance before the Dy. Commissioner, the claimant will be required to file the aforesaid documents. The Dy. Commissioner will verify the identity of the claimant on the basis of personal observation of photograph affixed on the record and documents filed by the claimants to establish his identity. Generally, the Smart Card issued to the Gas Victims will be considered as presumptive proof of the identity of the claimants and additional safeguard regarding identity of the claimants will be their Bank Account Passbook, which necessarily, now-a-days, contains account holder's duly attested photograph. If identity of the claimant is established beyond doubt; the Dy. Commissioner will issue an Account Payee Cheque to the claimant and receipt on the Voucher will be taken from the claimant at the same time. The photograph filed by the claimant will be affixed on the Voucher, which shall be part of the record. In case of any doubt or dispute as to identity of the claimant, requiring an enquiry into the matter, his case will be adjourned to the days kept' for the purpose, as per the convenience of the Dy. Commissioner." 5. We further find that in conformity with the Action Plan as approved, the Welfare Commissioner in exercise of his powers under para 8 of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Registration and Processing of Claims) Scheme, 1985 has laid down a procedure for disbursement of compensation and in the said procedure it is provided that the Deputy Welfare Commissioner will require the claimant to produce his Smart Card, Photo Identity Card, Voters' Identity Card, Passport, PAN Card, Driving License or any other duly recognized photo identify card having any proof of his identity and if there is any doubt regarding the identity of the claimant, the Deputy Welfare Commissioner will proceed to summarily enquire into the identity of a genuine claimant and after satisfying himself with the identity of genuine claimant the Deputy Welfare Commissioner will proceed to disburse the pro-rata compensation. 6. 6. It is thus clear that as per the Action Plan as approved and the procedure laid down in conformity with the Action Plan, the Deputy Welfare Commissioner will verify the identity of the claimant on the basis of personal observation of the photograph affixed on the record and the documents filed by the claimant to establish the identity. This obviously will be done by comparison of the claimant who is required to appear in person before the Deputy Welfare Commissioner and the photograph affixed in one of the documents such as Smart Card, Voters' Identity Card, Bank Account Passbook, Passport, PAN Card, Driving License etc. The aforesaid provision in the Action Plan and the procedure laid down further provide that if the identity of the claimant is still in doubt, the Deputy Welfare Commissioner will make a summary inquiry into the matter. Thus, the Deputy Welfare Commissioner cannot reject the claim where he entertains a doubt about the ideality of the claimant, but he can reject the claim only if on enquiry he finds that the claimant is not genuine. 7. From the records of the Deputy Welfare Commissioner produced before us, we find that the Reference Card was produced as Exh. P-1, the Ration Card was produced as Exh. P-2, Tata Survey was produced as Exh. P-3, passbook of the Bank Account in which the interim compensation was deposited was produced as Exh. P-4 and an Affidavit was produced as Exh. P-5. We further find that in Exh. P-4 which is the Passbook of the Bank Account in which the interim compensation is said to have been deposited, the photograph and thumb impression of Mohd. Ishaq is affixed. Hence, the Deputy Welfare Commissioner should have insisted on the personal appearance of the claimant Sheikh Mohd. and compared him with the photograph affixed in Exh. P-4, but this exercise has not been undertaken by the Deputy Welfare Commissioner. Moreover, as we have held, where the Deputy Welfare Commissioner entertains a doubt about the identity of the claimant, he cannot reject the claim but has to make summary enquiry and will reject the claim only after recording a finding that the claimant is not genuine. This, the Deputy Welfare Commissioner has not done. 8. Moreover, as we have held, where the Deputy Welfare Commissioner entertains a doubt about the identity of the claimant, he cannot reject the claim but has to make summary enquiry and will reject the claim only after recording a finding that the claimant is not genuine. This, the Deputy Welfare Commissioner has not done. 8. We therefore quash the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Welfare Commissioner, the Additional Welfare Commissioner and the Welfare Commissioner in Claim No. 527873/01 and remand the matter back to the Deputy Welfare Commissioner to first decide the matter with regard to identity of the claimant in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Action Plan and in the instructions of Welfare Commissioner as discussed above and thereafter determine the compensation if the claimant is found to be genuine. This exercise will be completed by the Deputy Welfare Commissioner within three months from the date of filing of this order. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.