1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal(MD)No.1560 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.3 of 2011 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Revenue, rep. by its Secretary, Fort St.George, Chennai. 2.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Dindigul District. 3.The Tahsildar, District Tahsildar Office, Ootanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul Taluk. ... Appellants/Respondents Vs. 1.S.Magudeeswaran 2.S.Dhandapani 3.S.Ramaathai ... Respondents/Petitioners Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 19.02.2011, made in W.P.(MD) No.1355 of 2009. WP(MD)No.1355 of 2009 Prayer : For the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned communication in O.Mu.A.D/Sc.9/2007/E3 dated 12.03.2008 on the file of the respondent No.3 quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner's application and provide him the necessary compensation. For Appellants : Mr.K.Mahendran, Special Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, J) The appellants have come forward with this writ appeal, challenging the order of the writ Court, dated 19.02.2009, made in W.P. (MD).No.1355 of 2009, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents herein, setting aside the impugned order dated 12.03.2008 and directing the first respondent therein viz., the first appellant herein to grant the relief which the respondents herein is entitled to, in accordance with law. 2.By mutual consent of Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the appellants and Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the writ appeal itself is taken up for final disposal, at the stage of admission itself. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.The learned Special Government Pleader would contend that the writ Court has failed to take note of the provision under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Labourers - Farmers (Social Security and Welfare) Act, 2006, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the application, submitted by the respondents, must be presented within one month from the date of accident, as per G.O.Ms.No.536, Revenue Department, 05.09.2008. It is further contended that the petitioner has already given an amount of Rs.10,000/- in another scheme and as such, he cannot claim the relief under the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the writ Court order is liable to be set aside. 4.Per contra, Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the writ Court has taken note of the admitted fact that the relief sought for by the respondent is on the basis of beneficial legislation and as such, technicalities regarding the limitation cannot be taken serious note in a very straight and strict manner. It is contended that there is only a delay of one month and 29 days in preferring the application, claiming compensation and the respondents have assigned valid reasons for such unavoidable delay. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the writ Court. 5.We have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the order passed by the writ Court as well as the impugned order, dated 12.03.2008, passed by the third respondent. 6.The fact remains that the writ Court has taken note of the admitted fact that the respondents sought for the relief of compensation under the beneficial and social welfare scheme. It is pointed out by the writ Court that such being the position, the technicalities like delay in preferring any application cannot be considered in a very straight and strict manner. Accordingly, the writ Court has rightly set aside the impugned order and directed the first appellant herein to grant the relief to the respondents as per their entitlement, in accordance with law. 7.It is pertinent to note that even in the ground it is stated by the appellants that the learned Single Judge failed to take note of the fact that the application to be presented within a period of one month from the date of the accident, as per G.O.Ms.No.536, Revenue Department, dated 05.09.2008. The above scheme itself called as Social Security and Welfare Scheme and that being the position, the writ Court has rightly consider the matter in respect of the delay in filing the application for compensation. Merely because the respondents have availed the grant of Rs.10,000/- in another scheme, they cannot be deprived of their opportunity to claim the benefit under the Act. 8.We are of the considered view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the writ Court warranting the interference of this Court. Accordingly, the writ appeal is hereby dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T &P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Revenue, rep. by its Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Dindigul District. 3.The Tahsildar, District Tahsildar Office, Ootanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul Taluk. +1. CC to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate, SR.No. 45561 +1. CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No. 45939 gcg Judgment In W.A.(MD)No.1560 of 2011 Dated: 22.12.2011 TR : 10.01.2012: 3p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/