1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.04.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. ARUMUGHASWAMY W.A. (MD) No.123 of 2011 S. Susheela : Appellant vs. 1 The Commissioner cum Director, Department of Fisheries, Teynampet,Chennai 6. 2 The Assistant Director, Department of Fisheries, Thoothukudi. 3 The Home Secretary, Chief Minister's Relief Fund Department, Fort St. George,Chennai 600 009. 4 The District Collector, Thoothukudi. : Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 22.12.2008 passed in W.P. No.9384 of 2008. Prayer in W.P. No.9384 of 2008: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 23.02.2004 bearing Mu.Mu.Ka.No.C4/21344/03. For appellant : Ms. A. Rajini For respondents : Mr. R. Janakiramulu, Spl. Govt. Pleader JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. SUGUNA, J.) The appellant in this writ appeal had filed W.P. (MD) No.9384 of 2008 challenging the order dated 23.02.2004 passed by the first respondent and for a direction to the respondents to pay the benefit of personal accident insurance scheme to her. The said writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 22.12.2008. As against the said order dated 22.12.2008 passed in the writ petition, this writ appeal is filed. 2. The learned Single Judge of this Court has disposed of the said writ petition with the following direction: "6. . . . On receipt of a copy of this order, the petitioner shall appear before the District Collector https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 concerned (R.4) and make a representation whereupon, the District Collector with his recommendations and observations relating to the impecunious circumstances of the petitioner after ascertaining the same, shall forward the same to the third respondent who shall take steps to place before the Government and see that some soccur is provided to the petitioner in whatever legitimate means it could be done as expeditiously as possible." 3. As per the above said order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, a direction was issued to the appellant/writ petitioner to appear before the District Collector with the relevant documents and that on examining the same, her request can be forwarded to the third respondent, who, in turn, will take steps to place it before the Government so as to enable her to get the legitimate benefits. 4. But, it is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that since her husband was a member of a particular fishermen society, she is eligible to get a sum of Rs.1 lakh. 5. Though a stand has been taken by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that the appellant/writ petitioner's husband was a member of the said society and upto 55 years of age only, one will be permitted to be a member of the said society, unfortunately, the relevant Government Order based on which this stand has been taken, has not been produced before this Court. 6. By the impugned order, the appellant/writ petitioner's request has been rejected on the ground that though the appellant/writ petitioner's husband was a member of the said society upto 55 years, in 1979, he has withdrawn his membership from the said society and on the date of his death, he was not a member of the society, consequently, the appellant/writ petitioner is not entitled for the said relief. Apart from this, it is the further stand of the respondents also that since the appellant/writ petitioner's husband was not a member, the appellant/writ petitioner had not paid premium also, consequently, the question of payment of a sum of Rs.1 lakh does not arise. Besides, it is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Special Government Pleader that by way of ex-gratia payment, the appellant/writ petitioner was also paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. When relevant documents were not produced before the authorities concerned and even before this Court in spite of a number of adjournments granted to the appellant/writ petitioner, this Court is not in a position to look into that. That apart, even the learned Single Judge has given a direction to the appellant/writ petitioner to appear before the authority concerned with all relevant documents. Instead of following the direction given by the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal is filed and as referred to above, before this Court also, no documents have been produced. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal. However, as per the direction given by the learned Single Judge, the appellant/writ petitioner is at liberty to appear before the District Collector. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed with the above said observation. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1 The Commissioner cum Director, Department of Fisheries, Teynampet, Chennai 6. 2 The Assistant Director, Department of Fisheries, Thoothukudi. 3 The Home Secretary, Chief Minister's Relief Fund Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 4 The District Collector, Thoothukudi. +1cc to Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.14327 W.A. (MD) No.123 of 2011 18.04.2011 cad PA/09.06.2011/3P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/