1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION No. 1821 OF 1994 1] Suresh Daulatrao Choure, Age 28 years, Occu. Business, r/o Chikalthana, Aurangabad. 2] Tulsiram Bhikaji Luthakar, Age 37 years, Occu. Business, R/o Chikalthana, Aurangabad. 3] Somnath Eknathrao Ambhore, Age Major, Occu. Business, r/o Chikalthana. ... PETITIONERS V/s. 1] The State of Maharashtra, copy served to G.P. High Court, Aurangabad. 2] The Collector, Aurangabad. 3] Police Commissioner, Aurangabad. 4] District Social Welfare Officer, Jalna road, Aurangabad. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2574 OF 1994 Sirojiddin S/o Jainoddin, Age Major, Occu. Business, resident of Chikhalthana District Aurnagabad. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1] The State of Maharashtra, Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader High Court Bombay Bench at Aurangabad. 2 2] The Police Commissioner, Aurangabad. 3] The Collector, Aurangabad. 4] The District Social Welfare Officer, Office at Jalna road, Aurangabad. 5] The Tahasildar, Aurangabad. ..RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION No. 2615 of 1994 Sahadav S/o Arjunrao sathe, age 60 years, Occu. Watch make and radio repair centers, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1] The State of Maharashtra, Copy to be serve through G.P. High Court, Aurangabad. 2] The Collector, Aurangabad. 3] The Police Commissioner, Aurangabad. 4] The District Social Welfare Officer, Office at Jalna road, Aurangabad. 5] The Tahasildar, Aurangabad. ..RESPONDENTS ... Mr. N.R. Salunke , Advocate for Petitioners. Shri N.B. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No. 1 to 5 3 CORAM :- B.R.GAVAI AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA JJ. DATE : 9thth JUNE 2010. ORAL JUDGEMENT :- The petitioner has filed the present petition for direction to the respondent to pay financial assistance, compensation and also rehabilitation. According to the petitioner, there were certain riots in the year 1994 on account of renaming the Marathwada University as Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marthwada University. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the said riot the properties of the petitioners were demolished and they sustained severe damages. It is submitted that according to the scheme framed by the State Government they are entitled for payment and compensation. 2. Shri N.R. Salunke, the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners states that,since the petitioners properties were damaged in the riot,the petitioners are entitled for compensation and respondents have on no justifiable reason denied the claim of the petitioners. 3. Shri N.B. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader states that there is no merit 4 in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 4. From the affidavit in reply filed by the Social Welfare Officer, it reveals that the policy has been framed by the State Government on 16/12/1992.However,the said Government Resolution is applicable only to the victims in respect of December 1992 riots. The Government also relies on Government Resolution dated 29/11/1982, wherein it has been decided to award such compensation to the victims who belongs to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and also only their claims pertaining to any incidents that had taken place prior to December 1992. 5. In that view of the matter claim of the petitioners are not covered under the policy framed by the Government and therefore, the petition filed by the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ] [B.R.GAVAI, J ] SDM* 1821.94 WP(J)