- (1.) Prayer in this writ application is for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to pay adequate compensation to the petitioner and also to make suitable arrangement for the protection of the life of the petitioner as well as the life and the properties of the members of her family and further to provide employment to one of the male members of the petitioner s family on the ground that the petitioner s family has suffered loss of life and property at the hands of the extremists and the petitioner s eldest son was killed at the hands of the extremists in the year 1994. The further prayer has been made to quash the order dated 15 04 2004 passed by the Respondent No. 4 whereby the petitioner s representation filed pursuant to the earlier order of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No. 5978 of 2003, was rejected.
(2.) Petitioner s ease in brief is that the petitioner who is a widow and her family owns about 300 Acres of lands situated at Village Kelhar, P.S. Chainpur, within the District of Palamau. In the year 1992, tin extremists had kidnapped the petitioner s son namely, Iftekhar Khan and under threats, had looted away the licensed rifle and gun of the petitioners family. Two years later in 1994, the extremists again kidnapped the two sons of the petitioner, namely, Iftekhar Khan and Bakhtekhar Khan and killed the elder one, namely, Iftekhar Khan. Later, a Police picket was posted at the village-Kelhar for protection of the petitioner s family but in the year 1998, the same was removed. Since, thereafter, the petitioner and the members of her family have been living under constant threat of the extremists, who are very much active and openly operating in her village. The extremists have threatened the petitioner and her family members to leave the village in order to grab the land of the petitioner. Because of the threat of the extremists, the male members of her family have started residing at Daltonganj and only the female members of her family are living in the village. On 26.02.2001 at 6 P.M., the extremists about 100 in number in Police uniform armed with fire arms, raided the aforesaid village and after ousting the petitioner and her family members from their house, set ablaze the house on fire and also damaged the household properties. They also burnt the Truck and the other vehicles parked within the house and took away with them two buffalos, 17 cows, 4 goats and other cattle besides large quantities of moveable household properties and ornaments etc. of the petitioner s family. While retreating, the extremists took away alongwith them one of her family members namely, Munna @ Kurban who was subsequently killed by them. They had also taken away with them one of the servants Tupra Parhaiya and a maid servant Sinita. Although First Information Report was lodged when the case was registered vide Chainpur P.S. Case No. 28 of 2001 under various Sections including Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but no tangible action has been taken by the Police. It is further contended that as a result of the killing of the petitioner s son and the lack of police protection, the petitioner and her family members have suffered huge losses and have virtually come on the road and have become penniless. The petitioner had prayed before the State authorities to extend measures for their rehabilitation and to pay adequate compensation for loss of life suffered by the petitioner s family. In response thereto, the State authorities had granted a sum of Rs. 20,000/- only in the year 1994 and thereafter no further compensation has been paid to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the State s duty under the Constitution to protect the life and property of the citizens and because of the failure of the State Government to provide adequate protection, the members of the petitioner s family have been killed at the hands of the extremists and have also suffered huge losses of property. Learned Counsel submits further that the State Government has to own and bear the responsibility for the loss sustained by the petitioner. Learned Counsel adds further that during the year 2003, a policy has been adopted by the State Government to extend monetary relief by way of adequate compensation besides grant of employment to one of the members of the family, who are affected by extremist violence activities but the benefit of such Scheme has been denied to the petitioner.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits further that earlier, the petitioner moved this Court vide W.P.(S) No. 5978 of 2003 with the same prayer. The said writ application was disposed of vide order dated 09.12.2003, directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau and with a corresponding direction to the Deputy Commissioner to consider the petitioner s representation in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Snmetri Devi and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, 2003 (2) JCR 192 and to pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner. The petitioner had submitted her representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau. However, her application was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on 15.04.2004 on the ground that since as per the Government declaration made on 07.05.2003 it was stipulated that the Policy of 2001 framed for the purposes of granting monetary compensation to the families whose members had died in extremists violence, was operative after the bifurcation of the State of Bihar from 15.11.2000 and since the petitioner s son was killed in the year 1994, the benefit of such Policy could not be extended to the petitioner. As such, the petitioner has filed the instant writ application on the ground that the petitioner cannot be discriminated in the matter of grant of compensation and compassionate appointment to the members of her family when under similar situations, others have been granted adequate relief. Referring to the judgment of this Court, passed in the case of Sametri Devi and Anr. (Supra) learned Counsel submits that the Respondents cannot discriminate the case of the petitioner who is also entitled to the same relief as provided in the aforesaid case.;