^.-o HIGH GOURT OF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3600 of 2004 Petitioner Versus 'v IH' : :i! Respondents 1. 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Siat. Pratima Bai, \ridow of Maaaklal Sataami, aged about 22 years, presenfly residiag at Vfllage Suhaspur Lohara, Dist. Kawardha (C.G.) State of Chliattisgarh, fhrough fhe Secretary, Tribal Welfare Departinent, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipur, Dist Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Rajnaadgaon, Dist. Rajnaudgaon (C.G.) The Coirunissioner, Tribal Wetfare, Raipur (C.G.) Asst. Cominissiouer, Tribal Welfare, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Dayaludas Satiiami, S/o Shivlal, R/o ViUage Basawar, P.S.Gandai, D»t. Rajnaadgaon (C.G.) Siat. Pursuiya Bai, W/o Dayualudas, R/o ViUage Basawar, |P.S. Gandai, Dist Rajnandgaon (C. G.) Durg Rajnatidgaon Gramin Baiik, Branch Rajnaudgaon, through Branch Manager (C.G.j 'X t^. WRIT PETITON UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONCTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri P. R. Pataakar, Advocate for the petitiouer. Shri M. P. 8. Bhatia, Depuly Giovt. Advocate for fhe respondeiits No. 1 to 4. Shri Rahul Jha, Advocate for fhe respondent No.5. ORDBR (Passed on. tbis 3rd day of September, 2009) Heard. 1. Leanied couiisel appearing for the petitioner submits that fb.e petitioner is widow of Manaklal, who was inurdered on 10.7.2003. Tbereafter,fhe petitioiicr filed au applicatkin oul 31.12.2003 (Armexure P/l) to the ColleGtor, RajnaadgaDn for] Etwaid.iag coiapensation under the piovisions of Scheduled Castei •Scheduled Tribe (Preveiition of Atrocities) Rutes, 1995. After | death of fhe husbaad, the petttkiner was not permitted by her i iulaws to live ia the iii.atnmoiual .house. There&re, fhe petitionei| i made a coinplaiat ia the poHce station as weU as to otheu authoFtties.Bymemodated 5.3.2004 (Aimexure| P/5)| fh^ Assistaat Coinmissioner, Tribal Developinent, Rstjaan.dgaon - -a- A^ Thakai directed fhe respondeat No.5 to niaiatam flie petitioner, ofb.erwise the compensation amoimt of Rs. 1,50,000/- awarded to the respondent No.5, benig head ofthe faauly ofthe deceased, vviU be recovered. Learued counsel further submits thatby uiemo dated 17.6.2004 the Assistaut CoriTnission.er, Tribal Development, Rajnaadgaon directed the respondent No.7 Baak, not to disburse the amount of Rs. 1,40,OOO/- to any beneficiary, without prior penuissiou. Even. fheri, it appeara that fhe amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- has beea disbursed to fhe fafher-tn-law of the petitioner, who is not takiag care of the petitioner and not permitting her to live in her niatrimonial house. The dispute asto whefher father-ra-law of fhe petitioner (respondent no.5), who is father of fhe deceased husband (Maaaldal) of the petitioner, is entitled to coinpensation in its entirety on deafh of her husband, is in question. This issue caanot be decided by fhis Court in writ junsdiction for waat of materials. The representation (Annexure P/7) is pendiag before the Coltector, Rajnaudgaon. It appears fhat the CoBector has not taken aay decision with regard to graat the conipensation amount eifher to the petition.er or to fhe respondents No.5 aiid 6. In the fitness of fhe things, it is necessary fh.at the Collector, Rajuaadgadn should decide the dispute and pass apprppriate order, in accordaace with law, afiter having afforded opportuaity of hearing to both fhe parties about fhe entitlement of fhe petitioner as weU as fhe respondents No. 5 and 6, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks. . In view of the foregoiag, wifhout expressuig auy opinion on the nierits of fhe case, the petition stauds disposed of. No oraer asto costs, Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge