ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. - (1.) THESE islands suffered immense setback on December 26, 2004 when Tsunami took away various lives of the islanders causing damage to their home, livestock, properties and means of livelihood.
(2.) THE Union of India formulated scheme for rehabilitation and cooperation. The appellant claimed, he lost his dwelling house, livestock and other movable properties. He made several representations to the authorities. He was given inadequate compensation, that too, only for the house. However, the authorities denied compensation on account of livestock. The authority appeared and contended, the appellant could not produce any supporting material. The learned judge gave him an opportunity to produce materials before the authorities and asked the authorities to give him opportunity once again to prove his claim. Accordingly, the authority gave him opportunity of hearing when the appellant could not produce any new document other than what had already been submitted earlier. The authorities once again rejected his representation giving rise to second writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing, the appellant miserably failed to establish his claim.
(3.) HENCE this appeal. Mr KMB Jayapal the learned counsel appearing for the appellant referred to the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge and contended, the authorities did not consider the report, in fact, no copy of the report was given to him. Authorities merely relied on the list that did not feature the appellant. We adjourned the hearing on January 29, 2013 enabling the administration to file supplementary affidavit disclosing the report. The authorities filed the affidavit on the next date. Paragraph 3, 4, 5 and 6 being relevant herein are quoted below: "3. That the list which has been annexed by the writ petitioner at "Annexure P-7" page no 41 is the report of the assessment committee which was supplied to the writ petitioner long back. The writ petitioner possessed the said document even at the time of filing the earlier writ application before this Honourable Court. 4. That there is no other report of assessment committee except the list which is annexed at "Annexure P-7" in the writ application. 5. That on the basis of the report of the assessment committee, listed persons were granted compensation to which they were legally entitled. Name of the writ petitioner does not appear in the said list and as such he was not granted nay compensation. Moreover, he was not able to produce any document before the authority on the basis of which his claim could have been considered. 6. That the respondent authorities have also looked into the earlier writ application filed by the writ petitioner/ applicant herein and found that he has annexed the report of the Assessment Committee in the said writ application also." ;