BHOJIBEN PATHA SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ms Shailaja, learned advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to delete respondents Nos.2, 6 and 7. Permission granted. Respondents Nos.2, 6 and 7 stand deleted from the proceedings.

(2.) RULE. Mr Neeraj Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Rule for respondents Nos.1, 4 and 5, Ms Manisha Narsinghani waives service of Rule for respondent No.3 and Mr HS Munsha waives service of Rule for respondent No.8. At the request of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(3.) The petitioner who is an unfortunate victim of earthquake which occurred on 26th January 2001 has approached this Court with a grievance that though as per the policy of the Government she is entitled to receive Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation for the injuries suffered by her in the earthquake and Rs.10,000 for major operation that has been performed upon her, she has been paid only Rs.25,000/- uptil now. It appears that the petitioner is resident of village Neelpar, Taluka Rapar, District Kutch which was badly affected by earthquake. She received serious injury on her left leg. After initial treatment at local hospital, she was removed to Ahmedabad for further treatment. She was issued the Certificate at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad on 24.4.2001 to enable her to produce the same before respondent No.8 for obtaining the compensation, since respondent No.8 at that time was the authority appointed to deal with the payment of compensation to earthquake affected persons. In the said certificate the disability of the petitioner was stated to be 40%. It appears that subsequently as a part of the treatment, the left leg of the petitioner was required to be amputated below the knee. The operation was also performed at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. The Civil Hospital issued another Certificate dated 31.8.2003 whereby the disability suffered by the petitioner was described as 50%. In view of the same, the petitioner approached respondent No.8 for obtaining more compensation. However, she was informed that respondent had by then ceased to be the authority disbursing the compensation and the power was now vested in respondent No.3. It is the say of the petitioner that for almost over four years the petitioner has been requesting different authorities to consider her claim for more compensation, but the same has not been responded to by any of the authorities.