ORDER

30.08.2022 Heard Mr. RS Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondents No.2 and 3 respectively being the Deputy Commissioner, Udalguri and the Superintendent of Police Udalguri as well as Ms. PR Mahanta, learned counsel for the Revenue and Disaster Management Department of the Government of Assam.

2. This writ petition is instituted by Sri Thaneswar Shil, resident of Anthaibari in the Udalguri district for setting aside the order dated 08.11.2013 of the respondent No.1 by which the claim of the petitioner for payment of ex-gratia amount in respect of killing of his son in a police firing on 03.10.2008 was rejected. As per the order dated 08.11.2013, on the basis of a report of the Superintendent of Police Udalguri, the son of the petitioner was not a victim, but he was a part of the unruly mob because of which there occasioned a police firing in order to save certain other innocent lives. As the son of the petitioner was not a victim of the police firing but a participant of the unruly mob, therefore, the payment of ex-gratia was rejected.

3. In an earlier round of litigation in WP(C)No.107/2013, an order dated 25.07.2013 was passed directing the respondents to complete the process towards payment of admissible compensation to the petitioner. It is stated that the order dated 08.11.2013 is in compliance of the said order dated 25.07.2013 of this Court in WP(C)No.107/2013. In the writ petition itself there was an affidavit by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Udalguri wherein in paragraph 4 the respondents took a specific stand that on 03.10.2008 at about 5.15.P.M, a communal clash took place at Udalguri in which an unruly mob comprising of 400/500 peoples armed with dangerous weapons like dao, arrow, bows, lathis etc., attacked the police party, as a result of which Sub-Inspector of Police, Jogen Chandra Bordoloi had sustained injuries and his uniform was also torn by the mob. The mob also damaged a vehicle having registration No.AS01Q/0815. As the police had no other option other than to save the lives of other innocent people and Government properties, four rounds were fired in the air to disperse the unlawful assembly and in such firing one person died and later the person concerned was identified as Krishna Shil being the son of the petitioner.

4. In paragraph 10 of the said affidavit, a stand was taken that there is a report of the Deputy Commissioner, Udalguri as per Memo No.UDL/Crime/03/13/1426 dated 12.04.2013 in which it was clearly stated that the son of the petitioner was a member of the unruly mob and he died in police firing and he was not a victim of the said police firing.

5. The order dated 08.11.2013 relies upon the said enquiry report to arrive at its conclusion that the son of the petitioner was not a victim but was a participant of the unruly mob resulting in the police firing. As the order impugned dated 08.11.2013 is based on a report of the Superintendant of Police, Udalguri as well as the reports referred in paragraph 10 of the affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police in WP(C)No.107/2013 and the said reports being not challenged by the petitioner as regards its factual correctness, we are unable to interfere with the order dated 08.11.2013 whereby the ex-gratia payment was rejected to the petitioner in respect of the deceased son. While arriving on the aforesaid conclusion, we, however, grant liberty to the petitioner to assail the report to the Superintendent of Police as well as other reports referred hereinabove, which provides that the son of the petitioner was not a victim but a participant of the unruly mob, in the event, the petitioner is of the view that the said reports depict an incorrect factual situation.

6. Writ petition stands closed with the above liberty.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant