Judgment : 1. Petitioner is the widow of Mr. Wilfred d’cruz, who died in a bomb blast in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on 18-5-1985 while he was returning from his place of employment. Petitioner approached this court claiming compensation for the unfortunate death of her husband. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the Saudi Arabian Government failed to conduct a fair investigation and prosecution of the culprits who are responsible for the bomb blast. Hence the Government of India is responsible to protect the rights of their citizen and to take up the matter before the International Court of Justice. 2. This original petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: (i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the respondents to take necessary steps to get the blood money/death compensation from the Saudi Government immediately. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the respondent to provide an amount or Rs.10,00,000/- as death compensation, in the event of failure of the Saudi Arabian Government to pay the compensation. (iii) issue such other relief on this honorable court deems fit and proper. Additional relief as prayer No. IV added: (iv) issue a writ of mandamus, any other order, writ or direction, directing the first respondent herein to raise the claim petition against the Saudi Arabian Government for payment of blood money/death compensation to the petitioner before the International Court of Justice as the State’s claim immediately. (prayer No.IV in the relief portion is added as per order dated 13-12-1999 in CMP 53311/99) 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri. A.X. Varghese, senior panel counsel appearing for the Central Government Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy and the senior Government Pleader Sri. Thomas John Ambookken. 4. I have gone through the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is specifically stated that the petitioner is having no legal right to seek any mandamus for the performance of a legal duty. The Government of India was in no way responsible for the employment of the husband and his stay in Saudi Arabia were on account of his own volition and as such there can be no liability on the part of the Government of India. The Government of India was in no way responsible for the employment of the husband and his stay in Saudi Arabia were on account of his own volition and as such there can be no liability on the part of the Government of India. There is no provision in the Indian Constitution nor in any other Statute, common law Rules which imposes a duty on the part of the Government of India to refer such cases to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). A dispute involving an element of Foreign Law and as such forming part of private international law has never been taken before International Court of Justice. The statute of the International Court of Justice does not also authorize the entertainment of such private international law cases and the case of the petitioner cannot be termed to be one coming within the purview of private international law, especially when any cause of action arose within the territory of India. The jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and in particular Article 36 does not empower the International Court of Justice to entertain such litigations. It is also contended that there is no treaty between the Government of India and Saudi Arabia which provides for a reference of dispute to the International Court of Justice for adjudication. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon various authorities on international law strongly contended that the dispute will clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and public law mandates that such issues be decided by the International Court of Law by referring the same by issuing appropriate directions to the Government of India. 6. Apart from the legal issues involved in this case, which is having larger public importance and touches the question of international treaties etc., I was of the strong opinion that the dispute can be amicably settled by way of granting appropriate compensation to the brieved family, especially, when the family had only received a paltry amount as compensation from a foreign company. In that view of the matter, I have issued orders on 18-10-2011 observing that the Government of India has not considered the plight of the victim who died in harness in a bomb blast in Saudi Arabia and I cannot concede the stand of the Government of India that there is no funds available to compensate the victims of terrorism outside India. Hence I directed that the matter should be placed before the Honorable Minister for External Affairs who shall consider this case sympathetically and explore the possibility of a settlement. The Ministry of External Affairs filed their statement stating that the concerned ministry would be Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs who are dealing with the affairs of the Indian citizens in abroad. Hence Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs also impleaded as additional respondent and this court on 18th December, 2012 passed the following order: “ Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Under Secretary, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs Mr. Behra and the learned Government Pleader Sri. Thomas John Ambookken. As per the order dated 27-11-2011, the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, the additional respondent in this case, has produced the entire files. An affidavit, supporting their contention, has also been filed. I have gone through the files and it is really shocking to me that though the ministry is formed as a welfare ministry in the year 2004, in this particular case, no welfare relief seems to have been extended to the petitioner, though the deserves to be financially assisted on account of the death of her husband in a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia as early as in the year 1985. This court, after impleading the additional respondent, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, directed at least twice to place the matter before the concerned Minister under the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs and to pass appropriate orders granting some reliefs to the petitioner even by framing such guidelines for enabling them to do so. The files do not reflect that any special procedure was taken by the ministry and it is a clear case of contempt. However, the Under Secretary, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs Mr. Behra, who appeared along with the files, had pointed out that the Minister concerned has seen the file as reflected by his signature dated 3-12-2012. Prima facie, the file was only seen by the Minister after the order dated 27-11-2011. However, the Under Secretary, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs Mr. Behra, who appeared along with the files, had pointed out that the Minister concerned has seen the file as reflected by his signature dated 3-12-2012. Prima facie, the file was only seen by the Minister after the order dated 27-11-2011. The ministry has not even cared to place the matter before the Minister in compliance of the earlier orders. Mr. Behra also pointed out that a welfare scheme is evolved by the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs granting legal assistance to the deserted Indian women and the scheme is annexed as Annexure R1 in the affidavit filed today. Needless to say, the Scheme is intended for giving financial assistance to the deserted Indian Women also. It is not as it intended to give any legal assistance alone. Since the scheme enables an amount of Rs.3,000/- dollars as legal assistance to such deserted women as litigation cost to the counsel, there is no harm for the Department to give it as a financial assistance to the litigant directly as such. Apart from that, I am of the strong opinion that the welfare ministry has to place this matter before the Minister concerned and to appraise each and every developments regarding this case and to see that from 1994 onwards the litigant is fighting for justice in a court of law. How much expenditure would the litigant have suffered and the court cannot shut it’s eyes to such a situation where the petitioner really deserves to be assisted monetarily. It may be worthwhile to mention that both the ministry must have spent more than Rs.10,00,000/- towards litigation expenses incurred in this case. That apart, the Ministry of External Affairs was consistently defending this matter stating that there is no rule or guideline enabling such litigants to provide financial assistance. Attempt was also made to release financial assistance from the Prime Minister’s relief fund which also was refused. The Additional Solicitor General Mr. G. Masilamoni, who appeared on the previous occasion, submitted that the petitioner can be treated on par with such deserted Indian women enabling the ministry to offer some financial assistance. However, the ministry is now coming forward stating that such contentions are of no use because, the guidelines reveals that it is a financial assistance to the deserted women. G. Masilamoni, who appeared on the previous occasion, submitted that the petitioner can be treated on par with such deserted Indian women enabling the ministry to offer some financial assistance. However, the ministry is now coming forward stating that such contentions are of no use because, the guidelines reveals that it is a financial assistance to the deserted women. In that view of the matter, I hereby direct the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, the additional fourth respondent, to place this matter before the concerned Minister. The minister, in his special powers, has to pass appropriate orders enabling the litigant to get the relief of at least Rs.5,00,000/- as the minimum relief and the ministry can modulate the scheme to that effect. This direction is being given showing complete enquiry to the petitioner and the fact that the State Government after assessing the financial background of the litigant, had offered Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner. If the State Government can provide such assistance, especially when there is no case against the State Government by the petitioner, the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, being a welfare ministry, can very well offer the entire compensation as has been claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition. However, I am restraining the relief to Rs.5,00,000/- as an ad-hoc measure which can be passed by a special order with the approval of the concerned minister. I also direct that the officers, Joint Secretary or above the rank in the Ministry of External Affairs as well as Ministry of Overseas Affairs shall remain present along with the files to assist this court for disposal of the case.” 7. In pursuance to said order, Sri. Athul Kumar Tiwari, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Government of India and Smt. Suchitra Durai, Joint Secretary (Consular), Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India were present. They assured this court to ensure the possibility of a reasonable solution and make a review of the entire case. Accordingly, it seems that the Ministry has taken up the issue again with Prime Ministers Office and the Honorable Prime Minister has sanctioned a financial assistance of Rs.5,00,000/- to the family of Mr. Wilfred D’cruz from the Prime Ministers Discretionary Fund, as a relief measure. A copy of the said order had been perused by me. Accordingly, it seems that the Ministry has taken up the issue again with Prime Ministers Office and the Honorable Prime Minister has sanctioned a financial assistance of Rs.5,00,000/- to the family of Mr. Wilfred D’cruz from the Prime Ministers Discretionary Fund, as a relief measure. A copy of the said order had been perused by me. I am satisfied that the financial assistance of Rs.5,00,000/- extended from the Prime Ministers Office would meet the ends of justice in a case like this on hand. This financial assistance will be great relief to the family of the petitioner. Though the petitioner’s counsel is strongly pressing for the relief claiming Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation, I do not think the petitioner is legally entitled for the same. 8. Similarly, the case was also taken up by the State Government and the State Government has also filed a statement through the additional respondent No.5. It was stated that considering the entire circumstances, the Government is of the view that there is no situation warranted for assistance to the petitioner. The State Government is not in a position to extend the payment of compensation to the petitioner and the Chief Ministers Distress Relief Fund cannot be extended to her since she will not come under the eligibility criteria for the same. Further there is no such scheme for State Government to extend relief in similar situation. Even then in obedience of the direction of this honorable court, the honorable Chief Minister has proposed to extend the financial assistance of Rs.1,00,000/-to the petitioner, not as compensation, but as a relief to the petitioner. The proposal will be placed in the council of Ministers for final decision immediately. 9. In view of the above, I propose to close this case directing the first and second respondents to comply with the order of Prime Ministers Office dated 15-2-2013 sanctioning the financial assistance of Rs.5,00,000/-to the family of the petitioners within a period of one month on furnishing necessary address, bank account details, etc. to the respondents or to the counsel appearing for the respondents. As decided by the cabinet of the State Government, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- sanctioned by the State Government shall also be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of this judgment. In view of the settlement, the legal issues involved in this case are left open. As decided by the cabinet of the State Government, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- sanctioned by the State Government shall also be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of this judgment. In view of the settlement, the legal issues involved in this case are left open. The petitioner upon receipt of the relief amount is directed to file a memo for the compliance and proper acquittance of receipt of the amounts before this honorable court and the registry may accept the same. 10. Before concluding, it would be inappropriate if the court has not appreciated the efforts taken by the officers of both the Ministry of External Affairs and Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, especially both the Joint Secretaries Mr. Athul Kumar Tiwari and Smt. Suchitra Durai. Their co-ordination is greatly appreciated in properly placing the matter before the Prime Ministers Office and also the effort taken by the Foreign Secretary. Needless to say that both Government counsel appearing for the Central Government and the Statement Government also assisting this court to arrive at an amicable settlement. Their efforts are also appreciated. All the pending interlocutory applications are closed. Original petition is disposed of accordingly.