THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.20343 of 2009 Date: 07-10-2009 Between Ande Srinivasa Rao … Petitioner and 1. The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 3 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.20343 of 2009 Oral Order: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Sri Kancharlapalli Siva Rama Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the brother of the petitioner, by name Ande Venkata Nagadharnath, is found missing after he went to a meeting convened by a Political Party. The said missing actually happened on 27-5-1999. 3. It is not in dispute that since the missing of the person could be traced, writ petition W.P.No.3494 of 2001 was filed before this Court and the same was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to lodge a complaint before the Police concerned. Accordingly, it appears that a complaint also was lodged and the same was registered as Crime No.21 of 2001 and investigation was taken up. After thorough investigation a final report also had been filed before the Magistrate on 30-4-2002. 4. But, it is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that as permitted by this Court a complaint was lodged before the Police and in spite of which, the missing person could not be traced in all these years and he is not even aware of the final report that was allegedly submitted to the Magistrate. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition seeking interference of this Court by way of issuing a writ of habeas corpus. 5. As already noticed, the missing of the person was first noticed in the month of May, 2001 and pursuant to the orders of this Court complaint was lodged before the Police and the same was taken into cognizance and investigation was taken up despite the investigation the missing person could not be traced. When that was the situation the petitioner did not approach this Court. 6. That apart, the petitioner pleads ignorance about the final report that was submitted by the Police concerned. This denial cannot be believed for the reason that no steps have been taken in all these years by the petitioner to trace the missing person in any manner nor any attempt was apparently made by the petitioner as to what had happened about the complaint made by him in connection with the missing of his brother. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner makes further allegations that the father of the missing person also died on account of non-tracing of the missing person. 8. Eventually, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that since the Police could not extend the cooperation expected he is entitled to receive compensation for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. 9. It is his further contention that when a person who is found missing or unheard of for 7 years, he is deemed to be dead and a presumption can be drawn in that regard. Therefore, treating the missing person as dead since he is not traced in all these years he claims compensation for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. 10. At the outset, we cannot agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner regarding the applicability of Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act. In such cases the burden heavily lies on the petitioner. Furthermore, there are no proceedings pending in any Court of law claiming any compensation. 11. It is only for the second time the petitioner is complaining to the Court seeking a writ of habeas corpus and simultaneously invoking Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act and claiming damages asking the Court to invoke the presumptive jurisdiction, as contemplated under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act in order to fasten the liability on the State. 12. In fact, for the reasons in the earlier paragraphs no positive action with a semblance of sincerity and keenness was initiated gy the petitioner and in the absence of the same, he cannot put the entire blame on the State and fasten the same with the obligation of paying compensation. 13. For the foregoing, we find no reasons to interfere with the writ petition and accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. ____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ____________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 07th October, 2009. Ak