OOMMEN K. O. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed inter alia seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The short facts involved in the petition would disclose that petitioner's son Sunil Oommen while working with M/s. Bartawi General Contracting Company at Dubai, United Arab Emirates met with a motor accident and died on account of the injuries suffered by him. According to the petitioner, the Preliminary Court of Dubai in Criminal Petition No. 279/1999 awarded compensation of 1,50,000.00 Dirhams which is equivalent to Rs.17,79,000.00 as on 1999, to the legal heirs of Sri. Sunil Oommen. Having come to know about the award, petitioner approached the Indian Consulate in Dubai requesting for taking necessary action to obtain the amount. He addressed a letter dated 29/10/1999, Ext.P1 to the Indian Consulate. The Company M/s. Bartawi General Contracting Company had also requested the petitioner to furnish a legal heirship certificate in order to clear the dues. The 2nd respondent by letter dated 16/12/1999 (Ext.P2) called upon the petitioner to provide certain documents. For easy reference, the said letter itself is extracted herein:

(3.) According to the petitioner, he had forwarded certain documents by letter dated 21/03/2000 which was replied by the Consulate General of India as per letter dated 27/03/2000 returning the documents for want of necessary particulars, wherein it is indicated that the documents which are not attested by the authorities are not acceptable to local Court and therefore the documents should be properly attested by the authorities mentioned therein. Petitioner therefore obtained all the documents, got them attested and the same was sent to the Consulate under cover of Ext.P4 letter dated 07/08/2001. By another letter dated 21/11/2001, (Ext.P7) petitioner was informed that the documents forwarded by him after attestation by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, UAE were submitted to the Dubai Court on 15/10/2001 and they have incurred an amount of 400 dirhams towards attestation of the documents by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, UAE. Further, petitioner was informed that the Consulate had received a letter from Dubai Court (copy enclosed) informing that diya money has been disbursed to Mr. Jaswinder Singh on the basis of a power of attorney earlier submitted in the Court, a copy of which was also enclosed. Petitioner addressed another letter dated 20/02/2002 to the Consulate stating that he has not received any such amount. He suspected forgery of a false power of attorney. Petitioner also enclosed the nature of fraud played for appropriating the amount. It is stated that the power of attorney was attested by a notary by name Vijay Pal with Delhi Registration No. 1065/97 and a photocopy sent from the Consulate office was attested by a person by name Surendra Kumar, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. A seal of the embassy of UAE is also seen on the back of the forged document. The forged power of attorney is produced as Ext.P10. It is contended that fraud had been played on him and money was taken from Dubai Court by forging documents. It is further contended that the fraud cannot take place without the knowledge of the 2nd respondent insofar as the legal heirship certificate is mandatory for receiving compensation money which the petitioner has sent to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the same had been obtained by the person who has committed forgery from the Consulate Office. Secondly, possession of the legal heirship certificate is also required with all necessary attestation which has been sent by the petitioner to the Consulate.