ISHAQ MOHD Vs. WELFARE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed a claim for compensation as a Bhopal gas Victim describing himself to be Sheikh mohd. The Deputy Welfare Commissioner while considering the claim of the petitioner found that in the old ration card produced by the petitioner and in the Tata Survey the victim had been described as Ishaq Mohd. Similarly, the affidavit sworn by the petitioner before the Deputy Welfare Commissioner, the petitioner has been described as ishaq Mohd. In none of the papers, there was name of Sheikh Mohd. On account of such discrepancies with regard to the name, the Deputy Welfare Commissioner, the additional Welfare Commissioner and the welfare Commissioner rejected the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution.

(2.) MR. Matloob Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was an illiterate person and in some of the documents produced before the deputy Welfare Commissioner his name has been described as Ishaq Mohd. and in some of the documents his name has been described as Sheikh Mohd. But in all the documents the father's name of both Sheikh mohd. and Ishaq Mohd. has been described as Mohd. Jumman. He submitted that sheikh Mohd. and Ishaq Mohd. therefore, is one and the same person and the Deputy welfare Commissioner, Additional Welfare commissioner and the Welfare Commissioner ought not to have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that there was doubt about the identity of the claimant, when the petitioner had been paid interim compensation.

(3.) MR. O. P. Namdeo, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that since a number of cases of non-genuine claimants were detected earlier, under the Action Plan approved by the Supreme Court and the procedure laid down by the Welfare Commissioner, the Deputy Welfare Commissioner is required to satisfy himself with the identity of the genuine claimant and where the identity of the claimant is in doubt, the Deputy welfare Commissioner has to reject the claim.