Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Ori) 415

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K.Panigrahi, J.
Harasamani Kantha - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.2826 of 2023
Decided On : 10-11-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prajit Kumar Pradhan, Adv., Mr. Meru Sagar Samantaray, Adv., Ms. J.J. Jyoti, Adv.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Ch. Satyajit Mishra, AGA

Compensation claims by cyclone victims require adherence to procedural fairness and accurate inquiry assessments to validate the withdrawal of disbursed funds.

Headnote:(A) State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF) - Assistance for cyclone victims - The petitioner, a widow, was initially credited Rs.95,100/- compensation for cyclone damage; later funds were withheld post-second inquiry citing her home was not severely damaged - Petitioner argued the second report was false, stating her home was destroyed and she had incurred debts for repairs - Court found inadequacies in the second inquiry findings and directed reinstatement of funds. (Paras 1-22)

(B) Right to a fair hearing - It was improper to alter compensation without personal hearing or proper inquiry into the petitioner’s claim; the Court emphasized compliance with procedural fairness in administrative decisions. (Paras 10 and 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s house was damaged due to Cyclone Fani in 2019. Compensation was credited to her account, but later withdrawn after a second inquiry declared her home intact; she filed a writ seeking the release of funds.

Findings of Court:
The second inquiry was deemed flawed, insufficient to justify the withdrawal of funds; recognition of the substantial loss incurred by the petitioner was affirmed.

Issues: Was the petitioner entitled to the compensation withheld by the authorities without proper inquiry? Was there a violation of her rights to a fair hearing?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the procedural fairness was not upheld in the withdrawal of the compensation, and the initial findings supporting her claim should stand.

Result: Writ Petition allowed; amount to be credited back to petitioner’s account within one month.

Table of Content
1. background on petitioner's claims and circumstances. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. petitioner's arguments against the second inquiry. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. opposite party's defense regarding damage assessment. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. court's observations on inquiry and compensation eligibility. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. court's directive to restore compensation. (Para 22)
6. final ruling of the writ petition. (Para 23)

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner through this Writ Petition has challenged the order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the Tahasildar, Pipili/Opposite Party No.5, wherein her claim of entitlement to get Rs.95,100/- as compensation in the severe damage category due to Cyclone Fani was rejected.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The petitioner is an old widow belonging to general caste. She has not been able to enroll her name in the BPL List of the year 1997. As a result of which, she became ineligible to be a beneficiary of the different schemes of the Governmentt as provided for the families of the BPL Categories. After illness the poor petitioner who is a ’Nama Matra Chasi’ became helpless to maintain her family in this world of misery. Because she had already spent all her saving money for her own treatment. Therefore, she has been applying for disability pension as provided to the disabled persons concerned by the State. However, all her efforts went in vain.

3. In the year 2019, the petitioner lost her home in Puri due to cyclone Fani. According to the scheme of the Government and on the basis of the inquiry report submitted by the Revenue Inspector, Pipili, the district administration had already paid the assistance money to the people in the locality. Accordingly, the authorities have credited Rs.95,000/- (Ninty Five Thousand) only in two phase i.e. Rs.10,000/- on 27.08.2019 and Rs.85,000/- on 11.10.2019 to the bank account of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner went to the concerned bank to withdraw the money. However, her banker refused to disburse any amount as her account has been withheld by the authority. Thereafter, the petitioner requested several times for withdrawal of the aforesaid money which has been credited to her account on account of compensation/assistance money. Therefore, on 20.03.2020 the petitioner filed a representation before the Tahasildar, Pipili, the opposite party No.5 ventilating her grievances and prayed for release the aforesaid amount to build/repair the damaged house.

5. Since the name of the petitioner was included in the list of affected person which were prepared after due enquiry made by the Revenue Inspector, Pipili and other authorities and being satisfied the assistance money was credited to her account. But, reasons best known to the authorities, without giving any intimation and without giving any personal hearing initially withheld the account and later on took back the entire amount. As the work was done from her saving now the petitioner is unable to purchase medicine for her sustenance. Therefore, in an compelling circumstances the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.8703 of 2021.

6. The aforesaid Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the opposite party No.5 to look into the request of the petitioner vide Annexure-2 and pass appropriate orders on the same taking into consideration the grounds raised in that Writ Petition within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order along with copy of the Writ Petition by the petitioner vide its order dated 09.06.2021.

7. On receipt of the order under Annexure-4, the opposite party No.5 issued notice to the petitioner to produce all the relevant documents to her claim and directed to remain present on 03.08.2021 in his office for personal hearing vide notice dated 08.07.2021. However, since the petitioner was ill, her son submitted all the documents and was present in the office of the Tahasildar, Pipili/ opposite party