KERALA FISHERMAN WELFARE FUND BOARD Vs. KUNJAN DIVAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing appellant No.1 to reconsider the request of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 for financial assistance for medical treatment.

(2.) Respondent No.1 is admittedly a fisherman and a member registered under the Kerala Fisherman Welfare Fund Board. He is afflicted with Rheumatoid Arthritis and has lost vision in his right eye. It was further averred by respondent No. 1 in the Writ Petition that he had got only partial vision in his left eye. According to respondent No. 1, he had made several requests to the Board for financial assistance. Ultimately, he had approached the Kerala Human Rights Commission for appropriate direction to the Board to grant him assistance. By order dated February 8, 2002, the Human Rights Commission had directed respondent No. 1 to submit an application to the Board for financial assistance and the Board in turn was directed to consider the application expeditiously. Pursuant to the above direction, respondent No. 1 submitted Ext.P2 application before the Board on April 1, 2002 praying for grant of financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs towards medical expenses incurred by him for the period from 1990 to 2002. But no action whatsoever was taken by the Board on the above application. In the meanwhile, the case of respondent No.1 was taken up by the Kerala State Legal Services Authority and another service organisation. But still, the Board did not accede to the request of respondent No.1. In its reply dated April 2, 2004 addressed to the Member Secretary of the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, the Commissioner of the Board informed that since the petitioner was suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis, he was not eligible to get any financial assistance as reported by him. A copy of the above reply was produced as Ext.P7. It was in the above circumstances that respondent No. 1 had filed the Writ Petition praying for a direction to the Board to grant him an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs as financial assistance for his medical treatment.

(3.) The Board in its counter affidavit averred that respondent No.1 was not entitled to get financial assistance since the disease he is afflicted with, does not come within the purview of the Scheme formulated by the Board for the said purpose. It was also averred that the present financial position of the Board was not good enough to provide assistance to respondent No.1 and that too for a disease which did not come within the purview of the guidelines framed under the Scheme. The learned Single Judge took the view that the intention of the Scheme being to render assistance to those fishermen who were not able to do any work, the Board was not justified in contending that respondent No.1 was not suffering from any one of the six diseases mentioned in the guidelines. The learned Judge therefore directed the Board to take a "human approach" and reconsider the case of respondent No. 1 "with required indulgence".