Judgment :- The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the fifth respondent to withdraw the investigation in Cr.No.14 of 2012 in connection with the mysterious disappearance of the petitioner's son S.Kannan, pending on the file of sixth respondent and entrust the same to the competent officer of the ninth respondent for investigation in accordance with law and further issuing a direction to the second respondent to pay just and reasonable interim compensation to the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that his son was missing, while he was travelling in a ship from Calcutta and to that effect, the petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus Petition in HCP(MD)No.876 of 2012. It is the further case of the petitioner that the local police authorities have not taken any steps so as to find out the missing son of the petitioner. After due notice, the Honourable Division Bench at paragraph Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 observed as follows and closed the Habeas Corpus Petition. “6. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, summing up the efforts taken, submits that as per the rules and regulations, all possible and reasonable steps have been taken by the 3rd respondent as well as the Coast Guard to trace the missing son of the petitioner. Finally, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, that inspite of their best efforts, the 3rd respondent was not able to trace the petitioner's son. 7. However, the grievance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the State police have not taken any steps to trace the missing son of the petitioner and no counter has been filed as to the steps taken by them. 8. However, even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the incident has taken place in the State of Orissa and there is no dispute with regard to the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute the steps taken by the 3rd respondent and the other respondents as well. 9. In such circumstances, after a thorough enquiry, if a finding, as referred to above, has been given, this Court is of the opinion, that no further action is required in this matter. Accordingly, recording the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, this habeas corpus petition is closed.” 3.
9. In such circumstances, after a thorough enquiry, if a finding, as referred to above, has been given, this Court is of the opinion, that no further action is required in this matter. Accordingly, recording the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, this habeas corpus petition is closed.” 3. While disposing the Habeas Corpus Petition regarding compensation, if any, the petitioner was granted liberty to make an application to the third respondent. On such application for compensation being made, the third respondent was also directed to consider the same. According to the petitioner, he moved the third respondent by way of his representation, dated 06.05.2013, and the said representation is still pending. 4. Upon notice, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1, 2, 5 and 6 submitted that the representation, dated 06.05.2013 made by the petitioner is nothing but the same prayer as agitated before the Division Bench, hence, the authority was not able to consider. 5. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confines his prayer only for consideration of his representation for granting compensation. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to send a fresh representation along with a copy of this order and on receipt of such representation, the authority concerned shall consider the same for the purpose of granting compensation on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.