GOVINDASAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st petitioner is the father of the 2nd petitioner. They have come up with this Writ Petition seeking a Mandamus directing the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 7 Lakhs as compensation on the allegation that one Lakshmi (daughter of the 1st petitioner and sister of the 2nd petitioner) was raped and murdered by the respondents 2 to 6 for which, according to the petitioners, the State is liable to pay compensation. The facts leading to this Writ Petition are as follows:

(2.) In this Writ Petition, one M/s. A. Rahul and R. Srinivasan are the counsel on record. When the mater came up for hearing on several days, there was no representation for the petitioners. Therefore, on 12.8.2011, this Court recorded the absence of the counsel for the petitioners and however, with a view to provide legal assistance to the petitioners, appointed Mrs. P. Uma as Amicus Curiea to prosecute this writ petition. Accordingly, the learned Counsel has collected the papers and has further submitted typed set of papers and also argued the case effectively.

(3.) Today i.e. on 18.6.2013, when the case came up for hearing before me, again, there was no representation for the petitioners by the Counsel on record. I heard Mrs. P. Uma, Amicus Curiea and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent. There has been no representation for the respondents 2 to 8 also. I have carefully gone through the records.