Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 4018 (MAD)

G. Lavakumar v. District Collector

2013-11-27

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to take appropriate action on the representations dated 16.2.2005, 19.5.2005 and 29.6.2005 made for the grant of Tsunami Relief Fund as per G.O.No.4, dated 8.1.2005, to the petitioners herein, within a time frame. 2. The petitioners were minors at the time of filing the writ petition. They seek a direction to the respondents to take appropriate action on their representations made for the grant of Tsunami Relief Fund as per G.O.No.4, dated 8.1.2005, to them. 3. The case of the petitioners is as follows:- On 26.12.2004, there was a Tsunami attack in which the Nagapattinam District of the State was affected badly. The petitioners’ mother died in the middle of 2004. On the fateful day, the petitioners’ father was also caught in the tidal waves and sustained multiple injuries. When he was caught in the huge waves, he swallowed sea water, due to which his lungs and stomach got severely affected. He got himself treated at the Medical Camp organized by the Velankanni Church for the tsunami victims. He was intermittently taking medical treatment in the Medical Camp. However, as his physical condition had not improved, he went to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nagapattinam on 8.2.2005 and after examination, he was admitted as in-patient. However, he died on 10.2.2005 in he Government Hospital, Negapattinam. For providing reliefs to the victims of the said calamity, the Government of TamilNadu issued G.O.No.4, Social Welfare and Noon Meal Programme Department, dated 8.1.2005, according to which, an amount of Rs.5 lakhs would be deposited in the name of the children who became orphans in the tsunami disaster and the said amount would be given to them only when they attain majority. Therefore, the petitioners’ uncle made a representation on 16.5.2005 to the 1st respondent. Again, after gathering relevant documents and evidence, the 1st petitioner made a representation on 19.5.2005, followed by another representation dated 29.6.2005, seeking the relief under the said G.O. As there was no positive reply received from the respondents, the petitioners have come before this Court seeking the relief as stated supra. 4. Again, after gathering relevant documents and evidence, the 1st petitioner made a representation on 19.5.2005, followed by another representation dated 29.6.2005, seeking the relief under the said G.O. As there was no positive reply received from the respondents, the petitioners have come before this Court seeking the relief as stated supra. 4. A counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent, wherein it is stated that both the petitioners’ father and mother died not on 2.12.2004 due to tsunami, but on other dates and consequently their death cannot be connected with the tsunami disaster. It is stated therein that the petitioners’ mother died on 8.11.2004, i.e. before tsunami and their father was admitted in the Government Hospital, Nagapattinam on 8.2.2005 and died on 10.2.2005 in the hospital due to cardio respiratory arrest. Since the death was not due to tsunami, the 2nd respondent has not recommended for sanction of Tsunami Relief Fund to the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the stand taken by the respondents is not factually correct, in view of the certificate issued by the Superintendent, Government District Head Quarters Hospital, Nagapattinam, dated 17.5.2005. 6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents reiterated the contentions raised in their counter affidavit. 7. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 8. The petitioners were minors at the time of filing the writ petition. It is an admitted fact that they lost their parents already when they filed the writ petition. Is true that the petitioners’ mother died on 8.11.2004, just one month before tsunami. But, insofar as their father is concerned, it is their categorical assertion that their father was caught and severely affected by the tidal waves of the tsunami on 26.12.2004 and he also suffered with multiple injuries. It is their further case that their father got the treatment in the Medical Camp organized by the Velankanni Church for the tsunami victims and as his health condition did not improve, He got himself admitted in the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nagapattinam, on 8.2.2005 where he died on 10.2.2005. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents does not deny the fact that the petitioners’ father died in the Government Hospital, Nagapattinam, on 10.2.2005. But, according to the respondents, the death was not due to the tsunami disaster, but due to cardio respiratory arrest. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents does not deny the fact that the petitioners’ father died in the Government Hospital, Nagapattinam, on 10.2.2005. But, according to the respondents, the death was not due to the tsunami disaster, but due to cardio respiratory arrest. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the certificate issued by the Superintendent, Government District Head Quarters Hospital, Nagapattinam, dated 17.5.2005. The said certificate is not disputed by the respondents and on the other hand, they also relied on he same by annexing it along with their counter affidavit. A perusal of the said certificate would show that the petitioners’ father was admitted in the hospital on 8.2.2005 at 10 a.m. for breathlessness with swelling of body and multiple healed abrasions over limps and trunks. It is further certified therein that his history revealed that he was affected in Tsunami for which he underwent treatment in the Medical Camp. The said certificate issued by the Superintendent, Government District Head Quarters Hospital, Nagapattinam, categorically recognizes the treatment given to the petitioners’ father in the medical camp which established the fact of giving treatment to persons affected in tsunami disaster. Therefore, the respondents cannot say that the petitioners’ father was not affected in the tsunami and consequently the petitioners are not entitled to the relief as per G.O.No.4 dated 8.1.2005. No doubt, the petitioners’ father lost his life on the subsequent date, but still, he has to be treated only as a victim of such tsunami disaster and consequently, I am fully convinced that the petitioners are entitled to the relief granted under the said G.O. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to grant the relief to the petitioners as per G.O.No.4 dated 8.1.2005. Since the 1st petitioner has become major by this time, the relief to be granted to the petitioners has to be worked out accordingly. The respondents are directed to implement the order passed in this writ petition within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.