Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 6445 of 2012 dated 8th July, 2013, whereby the petition preferred by this appellant has been dismissed and the prayer for adequate compensation has been rejected and, hence, the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the husband of this appellant has expired because of violence created by the extremists on 4.10.2011 and, therefore, as per the Governmental policies, she is entitled to the compensation. This claim has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 8th October, 2012 and, hence, the writ petition was preferred by this appellant. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that out of five criminal cases, in two criminal cases, her husband was acquitted. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Moreover, looking to the resolution dated 7.5.2003 and the resolution dated 16th February, 2006, which are annexed as Annexures -8 and 8/A to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, the pending cases against the deceased are not to be appreciated and until and unless the person is convicted, the legal heirs of the deceased will be entitled to the compensation. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, the judgment and order delivered by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 6445 of 2012 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that looking to the resolutions dated 7th May, 2003 and 16th February, 2006, which are at Annexures -8 and 8/A to this Letters Patent Appeal, if any person who is extremist and against whom, cases have been filed by the State, they are not entitled to any compensation.
(3.) Having heard Earned counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons: - - (i) This appellant is the original petitioner who had preferred W.P.(C) No. 6445 of 2012 for getting compensation. This petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 8th July, 2013 and, hence, the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. (ii) The husband of this appellant had expired on 4th October, 2011. It is alleged by this appellant that her husband, namely, Ishwar Das, has expired due to extremist violence and as per the resolutions dated 7th May, 2003 and 16th February, 2006, this appellant is entitled to the compensation. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that there are several cases registered against the husband of this appellant, three of which are pending as submitted by the counsels for both sides. Looking to the policy decision taken by the respondents -State dated 7th May, 2003 (Annexure - 8) and also looking to the policy decision dated 16th February, 2006 (Annexure - 8/A). it appears that if the deceased is a terrorist or if there are criminal cases against him filed by the State, he or his legal heirs will not be entitled to any compensation. (iii) Looking to these policy decisions which are dated 7th May. 2003 (Annexure -8) and resolution dated 16th February, 2006 (Annexure -8/A), this appellant is not entitled to any compensation. The cases, which were filed against the husband of this appellant, have already been referred by the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order passed in W.P.(C) No. 6445 of 2012 dated 8th July, 2013. Looking to the criminal cases pending against the husband of this appellant, it appears that in different Police Stations, at different intervals, the cases have been registered against him, either under Ss. 364, 302 of the Indian Penal Code or under Sec. 392 of the Indian Penal Code to be read with Arms Act. Looking to these aspects of the matter and looking to the policy decisions, which are at Annexures -8 and 8/A to this Letters Patent Appeal, this appellant is not entitled to any compensation. A detailed speaking order has been passed by the respondents dated 8th October, 2012, which are at Annexure -G to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents -State. Hence, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 6445 of 2012 vide order dated 8th July, 2013 and we see no reason to take any other than what is taken by learned Single Judge. As a cumulative effects of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed. Ed. - -Reported in : 2014(1) JLJR 16 ;