IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 534 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 31/01/2008 in WP NO : 492 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Laxmi Narayan Biyani S/o.Late Sitaram Biyani R/o.Malakpet,Hyderabad ..... APPELLANT AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Prinicipal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 State of Andhra PRadesh, rep.by Principal Secretary General Administration (Law & Order II) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad 3 The District Collector, Nampally Station Road, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bahadurpura Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant : MR.PRATAP NARAYAN SANGHI Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 534 of 2008 JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R.Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order, dated 31st January 2008 passed in writ petition No.492 of 2002, this appeal has been filed by the original petitioner. 2. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are as under – Communal riots had taken place in Hyderabad, between 5th and 8th of June 1998. Damage was caused to properties of several citizens. So as to see that the citizens, who had suffered because of communal disturbances are compensated, the respondent-State had issued G.O.Rt.No.2429, dated 10th June 1998. 3. It was the case of the appellant/petitioner before the learned single Judge that his properties were also damaged because of the disturbances, and, therefore, he had claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.12,75,000/-, but the Government had awarded only Rs.1,28,126/- being 75% of the loss estimated by a Committee constituted in pursuance of the aforesaid G.O. The Committee constituted under the G.O. had come to the conclusion that loss to the tune of Rs.1,70,833.50 ps. had been caused to the appellant/petitioner. 4. Case of the appellant/petitioner before the learned single Judge was that a huge stock of notebooks was kept in the premises, which had been damaged, and for the loss of said stock, nothing was awarded to the petitioner. 5. The learned single Judge did not accept the said submission, because, according to the report submitted by the Committee, the loss was to the tune of Rs.1,70,833.50 ps., and it had been specifically stated in para 6 of the said report as under – “There is no evidence of machinery, stationery or other material burnt in the premises but for a few burnt laboratory reports”. 6. In view of the above findings arrived at by the Committee, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the claim, which had been made towards damage of movable assets, was not justified. In the circumstances, the learned single Judge was pleased to reject the petition. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection, the appellant/petitioner has approached this Court by way of this appeal. 7. We have heard learned advocate Sri Sanghi appearing for the appellant. It has been submitted by the learned advocate that damage could have been ascertained even in a writ petition and even a claim in the nature of money suit can be entertained by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. So as to substantiate the aforesaid submission made by him, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, delivered in A.B.L. International Limited and another Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and others[1]. The learned advocate has taken us to the observations made in the said judgment and has submitted that the learned single Judge ought not have rejected the petition, but should have entertained it and should have directed the respondent-authorities to award higher amount of compensation due to damage caused to the movable properties of the appellant/petitioner. 8. Upon hearing the learned advocate for the appellant and upon perusal of the judgment given by the learned single Judge and the relevant annexures, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned single Judge. 9. It is true that this Court has a jurisdiction to entertain the claim which could be in the nature of money suit as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.B.L. International Limited (supra). However, looking to the peculiar facts of this case, we are unable to accept the said submission because, there is a finding to the effect that there was no evidence of machinery, stationery or other material burnt in the premises, except for some burnt laboratory reports. This finding clearly denotes that there was no stock of notebooks. Once the Committee had come to a conclusion that there was no stock, it would be difficult for this Court to come to a different conclusion that there was some stock of notebooks as claimed by the appellant/petitioner. So as to establish that the findings of the Committee are not correct, the appellant/petitioner is required to adduce evidence, which could be done only in a civil Court. The proper course open to the appellant was to approach a Civil Court, if it was his case that the findings of the Committee are not correct. 10. For the aforesaid reason, especially in view of the disputed questions of fact involved, and in view of the findings arrived at by the Committee to the effect that there was no evidence with regard to movable assets in the premises which had been damaged, it is difficult for us to accept the submissions made by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant/petitioner. 11. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 3rd July 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr To 1 The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Principal Secretary, General Administration (Law & Order II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Nampally Station Road, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad. [1] 2004 (3) SCC 553