IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7197 of 2010 1. Sarfaraj Mian S/O Reyajuddin Mian R/O Vill.- Chhardewali, P.O. Bakulahar, P.S. Gopalpur, Distt.- West Champaran 2. Mojamil Mian S/O Late Nathuni Mian R/O Vill.- Chhardewali, P.O. Bakulahar, P.S. Gopalpur, Distt.- West Champaran 3. Kulsum Khatoon W/O Abdul Wahab R/O Vill.- Chhardewali, P.O. Bakulahar, P.S. Gopalpur, Distt.- West Champaran 4. Molajim Mian S/O Late Nathuni Mian R/O Vill.- Chhardewali, P.O. Bakulahar, P.S. Gopalpur, Distt.- West Champaran 5. Saiyad Mian S/O Late Maula Mian R/O Vill.- Chhardewali, P.O. Bakulahar, P.S. Gopalpur, Distt.- West Champaran 6. Mostt. Janbibi W/O Late Mokim Mian R/O Vill.- Chhardewali, P.O. Bakulahar, P.S. Gopalpur, Distt.- West Champaran 7. Baskarim Mian S/O Late Qurban Mian R/O Vill.- Chhardewali, P.O. Bakulahar, P.S. Gopalpur, Distt.- West Champaran 8. Sakoor Mian S/O Late Aliser Mian R/O Vill.- Chhardewali, P.O. Bakulahar, P.S. Gopalpur, Distt.- West Champaran 9. Miajan Mian S/O Late Hadish Mian R/O Vill.- Chhardewali, P.O. Bakulahar, P.S. Gopalpur, Distt.- West Champaran 10. Md. Hoda S/O Late Mohamad Jan Mian R/O Vill.- Chhardewali, P.O. Bakulahar, P.S. Gopalpur, Distt.- West Champaran 11. Ashma Khatoon W/O Jainuddin Mian R/O Vill.- Chhardewali, P.O. Bakulahar, P.S. Gopalpur, Distt.- West Champaran 12. Mustafa Mian S/O Jainuddin Mian R/O Vill.- Chhardewali, P.O. Bakulahar, P.S. Gopalpur, Distt.- West Champaran 13. Sagir Mian S/O Late Nabul Mian R/O Vill.- Chhardewali, P.O. Bakulahar, P.S. Gopalpur, Distt.- West Champaran 14. Halima Khatoon W/O Md. Ibrahim R/O Vill.- Chhardewali, P.O. Bakulahar, P.S. Gopalpur, Distt.- West Champaran Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, West Champaran, At Bettiah 3. The Circle Officer, Champatia Circle, West Champaran 4. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Bakulahar, P.O. Bakulahar Math, Distt.- West Champaran 5. The Hulka Karamchari, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bakulahar, P.O. Bakulahar Math, Distt.- West Champaran -------------------- 02/ 29.09.2011 Heard Mr. Akhileshwar Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ranjan Prasad Singh, Assisting counsel to S.C. 2 for the State. The writ petition has been filed on behalf of 14 residents of village-Chhardewali in the District of West Champaran, who became 2 victim of the flood fury in the year 2007. It is the case of the petitioners herein that despite the State Government having come to the aid of such residents of flood affected areas whose dwelling were washed away or damaged by flood fury and in which direction the Disaster Management Department of the Government of Bihar also formulated a policy with respect to the flood affected areas of the year 2007 issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary dated 3.3.2008 placed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition the benefits provided thereunder, has evaded them. It is stated that the Flood Relief Anushrawan Samiti-cum-Vigilance Committee, Gram Panchayat Raj Bakulahar constituted under the said policy had recommended the case of 184 villagers for grant of relief of Rs. 25,000/- as provided under the Scheme which was inclusive of the recommendations of petitioner nos. 7, 9 and 11. It is further stated that whereas the claim of the petitioner no. 9 was subsequently accepted when he was provided with a house under the Indira Awas Yojana but the case of the petitioner nos. 7 and 11 has been ignored. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being aggrieved by the action of the Samiti, the petitioners represented before the Circle Officer, Chanpatia Circle, West Champaran and who duly recommended the case of the petitioner nos. 2 to 6 for compensation after certifying that their house had got damaged in the floods. The recommendation of the Circle Officer can be found on the margin of the representation dated 24.5.2008 of the petitioner nos. 2 to 6 and some others placed at Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Under the circumstances where the respondents ignored the claim of the petitioners that the present writ petition came to be filed. 3 Learned counsel with a view to cement his contentions that rejection of the claim of the petitioners for grant of compensation in the light of the guidelines of the Disaster Management Department placed at Annexure-1 was made without conducting any fact finding enquiry and in a mechanical manner, submits that the contentions are substantiated by the fact that whereas the respondents at one hand have rejected the claim of the petitioner no. 6 Mostt Janbibi, inter alia, on grounds that no such damage took place but on the other hand have also gone ahead by providing her a house under the Indira Awas Yojana and which demonstrates that the earlier views had been taken without holding any fact finding enquiry. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents disputing the claim of the petitioners and submitting that they have their own dwellings. Except a bald denial that the petitioners were not found entitled for the claim pursuant to an enquiry conducted in this regard, nothing has been brought on record, not even the enquiry report so mentioned in the counter affidavit. The existence of a temporary dwelling as mentioned in the counter affidavit cannot be a certification of the damage caused to the houses of the petitioners in the floods nor is a certification that it never got affected in the floods. It is but obvious that each person would require his dwelling for his habitation and would not allow it to remain in damage condition merely to satisfy the executive authorities for the purpose of their claim under the Scheme. Not a chit of paper has been enclosed in the counter affidavit disputing the claim of the petitioner except sweeping statements. It has been stated at the bar that not only the petitioner no. 6 but even the petitioner 4 no. 9 has been allotted with a house under the Indira Awas Yojana and which by itself demonstrates the variance in the contention of the respondent state. Considering the aforesaid circumstances and the fact that the committee so formed by the State for looking into the grievance of the flood affected persons had indeed recommended the case of the petitioner nos. 7, 9 & 11 while the claim of petitioner nos. 2 to 6 were duly recommended under the recommendation of the Circle Officer, there appears no justifiable reason to deny relief flowing to these petitioners under the policy decision of the State Government. However, as the petitioner nos. 6 and 9 have since been provided with a house under the Indira Awas Yojana their grievance stands settled. Insofar as the remaining petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 11 are concerned, as their claim has been found genuine, the respondent authorities in the district administration more particularly the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are directed to provide these petitioners with the compensation amount, in terms of the policy decision placed at Annexure-1 of the writ petition within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Since there are no recommendations insofar as the petitioner nos. 1, 8, 10, 12 and 14 are concerned nor any document has been placed on the record of the proceeding by these petitioners in support of their claim, the same cannot be allowed and stands rejected. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)