IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 12649 of 2008(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- NINKILERI MUSTAFA, S/O. ABOOBACKER HAJI, AGED 48, NINKILERI HOUSE, CHAMBAD P.O., THALASSERY. BY ADV. S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 2. FISHERIES DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KANNUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DISASTER MANAGEMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 12649 of 2008(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO. 65/2002/RD, DATED 2-4-2002. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. KDIS/38649/2004/M1 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30-11-05 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO. 412/02/RD DATED 22-3-2002 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.12649 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 12th January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner owned a fishing boat. That boat capsized in the sea due to sea erosion on 5.6.2004 causing a loss to Rs.9.5 lakhs to the petitioner. Second respondent assessed the damages caused to the petitioner at Rs.9.5 lakhs Ext.P1 Government Order provided for compensation in such cases. Petitioner claimed compensation as per Ext.P1. Although the petitioner contended that in terms of Ext.P1, he was entitled to be paid 25% of the damages suffered, by Ext.P2 order, he was paid only Rs.7,500/-. Aggrieved by the compensation so paid, representations were made to the various authorities including the Government. However, he was not paid any further amount. It is complaining of the above, the writ petition has been filed. 2. The only question therefore is whether the petitioner is entitled to be paid 25% of the damages suffered or whether the payment made by Ext.P2 is the amount liable to be paid. W.P (C) No.12649 of 2008 2 3. The counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent shows that in terms of clause 10 of Ext.P1, a person who has suffered damages is eligible for 25% subsidy subject to ceiling on subsidy per family as per Integrated Rural Development Programme pattern. It is stated that as per IRDP Scheme, ceiling of subsidy was Rs.3,000/-. According to the respondent, IRDP Scheme was replaced by Swarnajayanthi Grama Swarozgar Yojana in March 1999, as per which the maximum amount that can be paid to a family in general category was Rs.7,500/-. It is stated that therefore the petitioner was paid Rs.7,500/-. The counter affidavit further states that pursuant to the representations made by the petitioner, a clarification was sought for from the Government and that the Government have also clarified that the petitioner is not eligible for any further payment. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is obvious that the entitlement of the petitioner is for 25% subsidy subject to the ceiling limit. The ceiling limit as per the scheme noted above was Rs.7500/- and the said amount has been W.P (C) No.12649 of 2008 3 paid to the petitioner. If that be the case, petitioner's eligibility was only for what has been paid to him and he cannot claim any further payment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Ext.P5 and contended that the person mentioned therein has been paid 25% subsidy. However, Ext.P5 is seen to have been issued on 22.3.2002 whereas Ext.P1, based on which the claim was lodged by the petitioner was issued on 2.4.2002. This means that the payment by Ext.P5, was not made under Ext.P1. If that be so, the petitioner cannot complain that after the introduction of Ext.P1 anybody has been paid otherwise than in terms of Ext.P1 to claim parity in payment. In the circumstances I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge W.P (C) No.12649 of 2008 4