(1.) Mr. Chhinchani, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client's brother was grievously injured on 26/8/2008 in the communal riot that followed assassination of Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati on 23/8/2008. There is no dispute that compensation and additional compensation were paid by State from, inter alia, Chief Minister's Relief Fund as well as pursuant to direction of the Supreme Court, to those killed in communal violence. He submits, taking advantage of direction in procedural order dtd. 5/9/2022 requiring State to file objection to the additional affidavit filed by his client, State filed affidavit and raised defence of delay, against his client's claim for compensation. He submits, this contention was not there in the counter statement filed and subsequently taking it in response to the additional affidavit disclosing documents of injuries suffered and hospital treatment leading to death of his client's brother, should not be entertained or looked at by Court.
(2.) He submits, the writ petition was presented on 28/1/2020. Coordinate Bench had required satisfaction from him, to admit the writ petition. Satisfaction rendered was by reliance on judgment of the Supreme Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. M.I.D.C., reported in AIR 2013 SC 565. He submits further, there be direction for payment of compensation, as has already been paid out to victims of the communal riot.
(3.) Mr. Patnaik, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State and submits, the writ petition should be dismissed on ground of delay. Without prejudice he relies on the objection affidavit. Paragraph 7 is reproduced below.