AZIZUR RAHMAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case is yet another instance of unwarranted administrative sclerosis in disregard of the situational demands of urgency and sensitive human considerations. A timely, compassionate and realistic response of the concerned State authorities might perhaps have saved the petitioner, who helplessly ebbed out his life, pursuing his claim for reimbursement of his medical bills for treatment of his terminal disease of cancer. The petitioner, though, have expired and presently is not substituted by his heirs to pursue this proceeding, this Court does not feel hidebound by the technical rules of procedure in the exceptional facts and circumstances of the case to undertake this adjudication.

(2.) I have heard Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Bora, learned State counsel appearing for the Irrigation Department of the State and its Officers on record.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner on the next date i.e. 03.09.2007, having submitted that the amount as ordered, had not been released, the case was re-fixed on 05.09.2007. On that day, the learned counsel, Irrigation Department, on instructions assured this Court that the payment in terms of the order dated 27.08.2007, would be positively made within four days therefrom. THE case was adjourned to 10.09.2007. On that day, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced a communication No. IGN(E) 165/2005/Pt./314, dated 05.09.2007 of the Under Secretary (E) to the Government of Assam, Irrigation Department, Guwahati disclosing the sanction of an amount of Rs. 3,68,537/-, as provisional medical reimbursement in favour of the petitioner. As the decision, contained in the aforementioned communication, was prima facie in non-observance of the directions passed in the order dated 27.08.2007, this Court directed personal presence of the Secretary, Government of Assam and the Chief Engineer, of the Irrigation Department on the next date i.e. 14.09.2007 to explain the above departure. On 14.09.2007, the learned counsel for the petitioner apprised the Court that he (petitioner) had expired the previous evening.