Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 27 (TRI)

Nisha Debnath v. State of Tripura

2014-01-22

S.TALAPATRA

body2014
JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J.:- Heard Mr. B. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned GA appearing for the respondents. 2. The controversy involved in this writ petition falls within a short compass. The petitioner was a minor at the time when her mother namely Karayanna Bala Debnath was killed in an extremist violence that had taken place on 04.07.2002. The petitioner had approached the appropriate authorities for extending all the benefits arising from the Memorandum under No. F.11(1)-F(1)(C)/94 dated 01.01.2000, Annexure-F to the writ petition. In terms of the said memorandum dated 01.01.2000, the petitioner was entitled to have a sum of Rs. 1.25 lac as the financial assistance for death of her mother in the extremist violence as no suitable candidate was available in her family for employment. But the said assistance was not granted based on the purported report, available along with the communication dated 14.02.2002, Annexure-R-I to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. The District Magistrate & Collector, North Tripura, Kailashahar has provided the reason for refusal as under: The matter was enquired by the Supdt. of Police, North and it is found that the case does not cover under the extremist violence scheme. So the case is rejected. A copy of SP(North) letter is enclosed herewith for your information and taking necessary action. 3. In terms of the said decision which was communicated to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kailashahar, North Tripura by the said letter dated 14.02.2002, the financial assistance to the petitioner was denied. Surprisingly from the report of the Supdt. of Police, North Tripura, Kailashahar it appears that "During enquiry it revealed that on 4.7.2000 at about 1400 hrs. a group of armed Tribal people raided village Ratacherra and torched a good number of houses belonging to the Non-Tribal community. They also set on fire those Non-Tribal houses. Smti. Karanya Bala Debnath was also killed by same group during this attack. No specific group could be identified responsible for this incident during investigation." It further appears that for investigating the said occurrence Kumarghat PS Case No. 58 of 2000 under Sections148/149/436/326 of the IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and added Section 302 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. 4. No specific group could be identified responsible for this incident during investigation." It further appears that for investigating the said occurrence Kumarghat PS Case No. 58 of 2000 under Sections148/149/436/326 of the IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and added Section 302 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. 4. It is apparent on the face of the said finding that the mother of the petitioner was killed in an extremist violence on 04.07.2000, even though no particular group could be identified. Therefore, the decision as communicated by the District Magistrate & Collector to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kailashahar, North Tripura is an outcome of abject non-consideration of the said report. Even in the counter affidavit a feeble attempt has been made by the respondents to shield their said action by stating in the para 6 of the counter affidavit that those groups of tribal were not identified. As such, the police did not level the death of the mother of the petitioner attributable to an act of the extremist attack. However, under the said paragraph it is also found that as immediate relief, rupees fifteen thousand was provided to the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kailasahahar. However, it has been asserted that the said payment was made absolutely on humanitarian ground in anticipation of conducting the formal enquiry through the police. 5. Mr. Datta Majumder, learned GA for the respondents has fairly acceded that from a bare reading of the report of the Supdt. of Police, North Tripura it would appear that even if the group could not be identified, the death of the petitioner's mother is certainly attributable to the extremist violence. 6. Mr. Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has been paid only Rs. 15,000/- and nothing more, during the entire period. 7. After appreciating the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on meticulous scrutiny of the records so placed before this Court, it is directed that the respondents shall pay a sum of Rs. 1.25 lac to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from today on deducting the said sum of Rs. 15,000/- as paid as the immediate relief. 1.25 lac to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from today on deducting the said sum of Rs. 15,000/- as paid as the immediate relief. It is made clear that if the said amount is not paid within the stipulated period as indicated, the said amount shall carry interest @ 7% from the date of filing the writ petition i.e. 15.05.2004. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.