- (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 15-6-2004, passed by District Collector, Sikar, whereby the compensation awarded to petitioner for an alleged rape, was reduced from rs. 50,000/- to merely Rs. 5,000/ -. The petitioner has also prayed that the order dated 23-1-2004, whereby the compensation Rs. 25,000/-was directed to be paid to the petitioner for the alleged rape, as well as the order dated 10-3-2004, whereby District Level Committee granted relief of Rs. 25,000/- to victim of atrocities, should be upheld and the respondents be directed to make payment of Rs. 25,000/-, by way of compensation, to the petitioner.
(2.) 2. 2004. 2. A decision was taken to grant Rs. 25,000/- as financial help to the petitioner and the order dated 23-1-2004 was passed. In another meeting held on 10-3-2004 by the District Level committee the decision of granting relief of Rs. 25,000/- was sanctioned. Thereafter the order dated 24-2-2004 was passed to disburse the amount from the relief fund of Public Security. When amount was not disbursed, the Additional District Magistrate Sikar, vide order dated 28-4-2004, directed Asstt. Director Social Welfare Department Sikar to make payment of the amount. When no action was taken, the petitioner made representation to District Collector Sikar on 18-5-2004. However, vide order dated 15-6-2004, the District Collector observed that the Assistant Director, Social Welfare has pointed out that the petitioner's case for compensation relates to a period prior to the compensation amount being revised by the Government. Hence, she is entitled to only Rs. 5,000/- by way of compensation. Thus, the collector reduced the compensation from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 5,000/ -. Hence, this petition before this Court. However, vide order dated 15-6-2004, the District Collector observed that the Assistant Director, Social Welfare has pointed out that the petitioner's case for compensation relates to a period prior to the compensation amount being revised by the Government. Hence, she is entitled to only Rs. 5,000/- by way of compensation. Thus, the collector reduced the compensation from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 5,000/ -. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(3.) MR. Anoop Dhand, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that prior to promulgation of the Scheduled Castes and the scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules,1995 (`the Rules' for short), the State Government had issued circular dated 8-5-1985, wherein State Government had held that it would grant a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the victim of rape provided that the victim belongs to Scheduled Castes community. However, after promulgation of the Rules, the said circular has elapsed. Under Rule 15 of the Rules, a legal duty has been imposed upon the State government to prepare a model Contingency plan for implementing the provisions of the Act and to notify the same in the Official gazette. Thus, under Rule 15, the State Government was legally bound to prepare a compensation scheme. Rule 12 (4), moreover, requires that a District Magistrate or Sub Divisional Magistrate should pay interim relief in cash or in kind or both to the victims of atrocity, their family members and dependents according to the schedule annexed to these Rules. According to the schedule, a victim of sexual exploitation was entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 50,000/ -. Out of this compensation, 50% of the amount should be paid after medical examination and remaining 50% should be paid at the conclusion of trial. According to learned counsel the State government should have prepared the model contingency plan. But it failed to do so. Later on, vide circular dated 29-9-2000, a rape victim was entitled to get one lakh rupees. According to the learned counsel, since the alleged rape, in the present case, took place on 25-5-2000, the petitioner would be entitled to get a compensation of rs. 50,000/-, as the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the omission on the part of State Government in not preparing the model contingency plan. Learned counsel further contended that Rule 15 is mandatory provision, and is not directory in nature. In order to support his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on dr. Manuja Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan [2002 (3) RLR 131]. The learned counsel has, further, contended that the order dated 23-12004 was passed on the basis of the Rules. Lastly, that the compensation amount could not possibly be reduced from rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since the impugned order has been passed behind the back of petitioner, obviously the principles of natural justice have been violated.;