SHRI N. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI Vs. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner says that his humble lodgings at Hut Bay were destroyed in course of the tsunami on that fateful Boxing Day of 2004. The present application has been carried to Court on the ground that the Administration has been insensitive to his plight despite his small building having been irreparably damaged.

(2.) The undisputed position is that the writ petitioner is an employee under the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Forest Plantation and Development Corporation, a Government body. As an electrician under such corporation, the petitioner was allotted staff quarters at Hut Bay. According to the petitioner, at the time that the tsunami hit these islands, the petitioner was at his personal residence since his official quarters were undergoing repair. The petitioner says that the petitioner thereafter applied for a permanent shelter and was called at a hearing on Aug. 17, 2007 but was not favoured with any decision taken thereat. The petitioner instituted WP No.127 of 2009 on the ground that the authorities had failed to take any decision in respect of his claim despite affording him a hearing on Aug. 17, 2007. That earlier writ petition was disposed of on July 21, 2009 by directing the Tehsildar, Hut Bay, to consider the petitioner's claim for allotment of a permanent tsunami shelter.

(3.) Pursuant to such directions, the Tehsildar has passed a reasoned order after hearing the petitioner. It is such order of Oct. 05, 2009 which has been challenged in the present proceedings. The petitioner says that the Tehsildar took into account irrelevant considerations and failed to take into account relevant considerations in deciding against him. The petitioner says that there was no dispute that the petitioner owned a small plot of land in Hut Bay or was a tenant in respect thereof under the Administration and that the petitioner had constructed a building thereat with a small shop room therein. The petitioner says that any casual visit to the remains of the petitioner's building would show the extent of the destruction and, as such, the petitioner should have been granted a permanent tsunami shelter.