JUDGMENT : Alok Singh, J. Petitioner was running factory in the name and style of M/s Parvat Woolens, in municipal property No. 206, Bara Bazar, Mallital, Nainital; during anti-Sikh riots of 1984, miscreants damaged the factory of the petitioner as well as the stock stored therein; matter of the petitioner was referred to Sri S.K. Mukherji, Compensation Officer appointed by the then State of Uttar Pradesh; Compensation Officer recommended payment of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation to the petitioner, vide his report dated 1.7.2000, Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition; meanwhile, Government of India issued a policy of compensation dated 16.1.2006, Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition, making provision for the payment of ex-gratia for damaged commercial/industrial properties at the rate of ten times the amount minus the amount already paid. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the strength of clause (vi) of the policy issued by the Government of India, has vehemently argued that since Compensation Officer has recommended to make payment of Rs. 30,000/- for damage caused to his factory as well as to stock stored in the factory, therefore, in view of clause (vi) of the Government of India Policy dated 16.1.2006, petitioner should be paid ten times ex-gratia amount, which would come to Rs. 3,00,000/-. Further contends that even Rs. 30,000/- as assessed by the Compensation Officer has not been paid to the petitioner as yet. On the other hand, Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Additional Advocate General, has vehemently argued that bare reading of clause (vi) of the Government of India Policy dated 16.1.2006 would reveal that ten times ex gratia amount would be paid if damage was caused to un-insured commercial/industrial properties. According to Mr. Rawat, since factory was not damaged and only woolen stocks stored therein were damaged, therefore, clause (vi) of the Government of India Policy has no application in the present case. Further contends that it is true that petitioner has not accepted Rs. 30,000/- as yet, therefore, he is entitled only for Rs. 30,000/- and not Rs. 3,00,000/-. Neither of the parties is saying that the factory of the petitioner was insured. Perusal of the report of the Compensation Officer Sri S.K. Mukherji would reveal that he has assessed compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for the damage caused to the factory as well as stocks stored therein. 30,000/- and not Rs. 3,00,000/-. Neither of the parties is saying that the factory of the petitioner was insured. Perusal of the report of the Compensation Officer Sri S.K. Mukherji would reveal that he has assessed compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for the damage caused to the factory as well as stocks stored therein. Therefore, it can very well be said that damage was caused to the factory as well as to the stocks stored therein. Consequently, in my considered opinion, clause (vi) of the Government of India Policy dated 16.1.2006 has full application in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of the discussions made hereinbefore, recommendation of the Lokayukta, Uttarakhand to make payment of Rs. 30,000/- only does not sustain in the eyes of law. Consequently writ petition is allowed. Writ of mandamus is issued to respondent nos. 2 & 3 commanding them to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- to the petitioner within thirty days from today failing which petitioner shall also be paid interest at the rate of 10% per annum from today till actual payment is made. It goes without saying that respondent nos. 2 & 3, as per the policy, if any, shall be at liberty to apply for reimbursement of the amount from the Government of India. No order as to costs.