IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34840 of 2010(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.N.VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.NARAN, AGED 47, KALATHIL HOUSE, PONNAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVENRMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA – 688 501. 3. THE SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA – 688 501. R1 TO R3 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 34840 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T On the basis of an incident that allegedly took place on 12/4/98, a case involving offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was charge sheeted and the petitioner claims to be the de facto complainant in that case. He claimed immediate relief as provided under Rule 12(4) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995, read with Entry 15 of Annexure I. That was turned down by Ext.P2. It is challenging Ext.P2 and seeking consequential orders, the writ petition is filed. 2. Rule 12 deals with the measures to be taken by the District Administration when attrocity has been committed, Rule 12(4) provides that the District Magistrate or the Sub Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate shall make arrangements to provide immediate relief in cash or in kind or both to victims of atrocity, their family members and dependents according to the scale as in the Schedule annexed to the rules. WPC No.34840/10 :2 : Entry 15 of Annexure provides for restoration of the site/right to stay and compensation of Rs.25,000/- to each victim and reconstruction of the house at Government cost, if destroyed, to be paid in full when charge sheet is sent to the Lower court. 3. Admittedly, offence which is the subject matter of the Criminal case pending has allegedly happened in 1998 and the claim made under the aforesaid provisions of the rules is only at this distance of time. A reading of the rule makes it clear that the intention of the rule is to provide immediate relief to the victim of an offence under the Act. That necessarily means that the Rule Making Authority would never have intended to provide such benefits after a long delay. It is precisely on account of the aforesaid reason that the claim made by the petitioner has been rejected by Ext.P2. I do not find anything illegal in Ext.P2. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp