.„<"*"*•». ,r:;-A ^ 1 '•:. M ^tfa^" ,^ywsst' S.^)>" 9^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No, 1551 of 2003 •yiFq*.i|ui I- e^??'& ^. <ra 23 q^ qf?r 'Fq- rft' 2- ^S.tf^t <&TufcT Rl? <ra ?wm 3 trf fi 3- - ^^g^twffl Rf? ^S PPPTT ^s <?< firar w- vwfs W? st-fl ^rarf^pr qf^r vw EI^'S^I m^ Pi^iA pitsft IIRT terrey a.rr.TT t)<<h'<s;], furar Reii'a^". W.^T. '3^TCTNN1JT 1. W?(TOET ?TCT uR^cT 4'tuT7 I?RTW ^ tc^ q>c1ct»(ril 2. yoJi'M'ild mWT gT?T ^rf^.;HTTFq g^mr'T "wy W.TT. 3. •W^S W! gTCT Wte td ^ tewT (Writ Petition under Article 226 r/w 227 offhe Constitution ofindia) (SB: Hoa'ble Shri Satish K. Agnih.oti-i J.) Shri Shashi Kuinar, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms Hamida Siddque, Advocate for the respondeuts No. 1 aad 3, Shri M. P. S. Bhatia, Deputy Go\rt. Advocate for fhe respondent No.2, ( Passed on fhis llfh day ofAugust, 2009 ) Heard. Leamed counsel appeanng for fhe petitioners siib petitioners seek coiapensation froia the Railway ground fhat when Yashwaat Siagh (husband of mits tliat fhe Soard on the the petitioner No. 1 aad faftier of minnr petitioners No. 2 and 3) was crossiiig over the railway tracks, at fhat tune, tsvo trains passed through, as a result ofwhich, Yashwant Siagh died in the accident, and, as such the petitiouers are entitled to a suxn of Rs. 6 Lacs as 2. coiapensation. Leamed counsel furfher subinits fhat the approached fhe Railway Claims TribunaE, . appUcation dated 3.8.2002 but the same was petitioners had hopal by fUuig t. accepted. '^"^. "^ 3. 4. 2 ^\ On perusal of fhe papers, no appUcatiori., as stated by tlie petitioners, has beea annexed in this petitioii. The petitioners have not furfher im.pleaded fhe Railwa}r Claiins Triburi.al, Bhopal, as party respondeiit to the petition. Se fh.at as it luay, firstly, deteiTuiaation of coinpensation requires recordiug of evidence, production of docum.ents to estabUsh whether fhe petitioner is eatiGed to com.pensation. Secondly, if so, what would be fhe coinpensatioa ? Ttus exercise caanot be done by wa}r ofaffidavits in writjurisdiction. In view of the foregoiug, the petition is disiaissed as not jiiaintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to talce recourse to Railway Clauns Tribuiial or to fhe Civil Court, ifso advised. , __—---- - —— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur