M. NITHIYA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner seeks Compensation from the State for the death of her nine year old daughter in the accident involving a Bullock Cart engaged in illegal sand mining from Vaigai riverbed. According to the Petitioner, on 7.6.2010 at about 8.30 a.m., the daughter of the Petitioner, namely, Dhanalakshmi was going to School in a Bicycle along with her relative Karthikaiselvan, at that time, the Bullock Cart which is driven by the sixth Respondent carrying illegally mined sand hit against the Bicycle. As a result of the said accident, the nine year old daughter of the Petitioner died instantaneously. It is also claimed that an FIR was registered against the said Dinesh @ Dineshkumar by the Fifth Respondent. The said Dineshkumar was also arrested and was enlarged on bail on 8.6.2010. The husband of the Petitioner Murugesan, who was aged about 32 years was also died on 16.6.2010. According to the Petitioner, her husband Murugesan died due to the depression caused by the death of her daughter. The Petitioner, in her Affidavit, has narrated as to how rampant illegal sand mining goes on without any check. According to her, it is the failure on the part of the Revenue and Police officials to initiate serious action against such Sand Smugglers which had resulted in the death of her daughter. It is also stated that the accident occurred near the Railway level crossing where about 100 School children go to their School in the morning by walk as well as by Bicycles. According to the Petitioner, the lives of the children tire in danger in the hands of such illegal Sand Miners. The Petitioner claims that she had made several Representations to the Authorities including the Honourable Chief Minister to initiate action against illegal sand mining and for providing Compensation to her for the death of her only daughter in the accident. It is also stated that the Seventh Respondent namely, the Tahsildar, Vadipatty Taluk had recommended the case of the Petitioner for Compensation front the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. Since no orders have been passed till the date of filing of the Writ Petition either providing Compensation or granting compassionate appointment to the Petitioner, the Petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition.

(2.) The Tahsildar, Vadipatty Taluk, the Seventh Respondent herein has filed a Counter Affidavit. The fact that the daughter of the Petitioner was killed in the accident involving a Bullock Cart loaded with sand illegally mined from Vaigai riverbed is not disputed. It is also stated that a case in Crime No.150 of 2010 has been registered under Sec. 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the Bullock Cart namely, Dinesh @ Dinesh Kumar, the Sixth Respondent herein. The Counter Affidavit is silent about any action taken against him under the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 which provide for stricter penalties for illegal sand mining. The Seventh Respondent would also state that he has recommended the case of the Petitioner for grant of relief under the Chief Minister's Relief Fund as early as on 5.8.2010. He would further submit that there is no rule enabling appointment on compassionate grounds in the circumstances of this case, lie would further submit that on humanitarian ground, the Petitioner may be accommodated in any one of the noon meal centres. He would further submit that he is not empowered to grant such appointment.

(3.) When this Writ Petition was listed before this Court earlier, the Honourable Mr. Justice K.K. Sasidharan, on 10.8.2016 issued direction to the District Collector. Madurai who is the Third Respondent herein to consider the plight of the Petitioner in the light of recommendation made by the Tahsildar. Vadipatty and ascertain the feasibility of appointing the Petitioner in anyone of the Noon Meal Centres. The matter was posted for reporting compliance with the said Order. A Compliance Report has been filed by the District Collector, Madurai. In the said Compliance Report, it has been stated that the posts of Noon Meal Organiser, Cook, Assistant in Noon Meal Centres arc filled up by publication of advertisement in Newspapers and if the Petitioner applies on such publication and if she is found eligible, she would be appointed. Considering the nature of the report, the Honourable Mr. Justice K.K. Sasidharan, by an Order dated 22.8.2016, recalled the earlier Order and has posted the Writ Petition for hearing on merits. Thus, the Writ Petition is listed before me.