THAYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, being aggrieved by the impugned communication dated 12th May 2008 bearing No. (Vernacular matter omitted. . . . . Ed.)/010/2006-07 issued by fourth respondent - Secretary, Agricultural Produce marketing Committee, Hunsur, Mysore District and the order dated 5th/8th August 2006 bearing No. (Vernacular matter omitted. . . . . Ed.) 4847-49/2006-07 passed by second respondent -: the Principal Managing Director, Karnataka State Agricultural marketing Board, Bangalore, vide Annexures-A and B, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents 2 and 4 to pay the compensation to the petitioner under the 'raita Sanjeevini Insurance Scheme'.

(2.) THE petitioner herein claims that, her husband late Sri Nage Gowda died due to electrocution while fixing the electric motor in the land on 25th March 2005. Therefore, petitioner has filed necessary application before the fourth respondent claiming compensation under 'raita Sanjeevani Insurance Scheme' (hereinafter referred as 'scheme' for short ). Along with the said application, she has also produced necessary documents including the post Mortem Report issued by the competent authority of the General Hospital, Hunsur to establish that, her late husband has died due to electrocution. Instead of considering her application, as provided under the 'scheme', referred above, her request has been rejected stating that, her claim does not come under rule 3 (2) of the 'scheme' by the communication of the fourth respondent dated 12th may 2006 vide Annexure-A. Immediately thereafter, petitioner has resubmitted her request for reviewing the said claim through the second respondent before the second respondent on 15th May 2006 and the said request made by the petitioner has also been rejected by the second respondent on 5th/8th August 2008 vide Annexure-B. Being aggrieved by the impugned communication and the order vide Annexures-A and B respectively, referred above issued and passed by respondents 4 and 2 respectively, petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondents.