Aovaraou Venkataramana v. Hyderabad

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ, order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature. of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in not paying the compensation to an ambunt of Rs. 3,00,0001(Three Lakhs only) in the spirit of G.O.M.S. No.9, Dated 07-03-2015 and Judgment of Supreme Court in Suresh and another vs. state of Haryana 2015 (1) ALT (Crl.) 263 (SC) on account of death of petitioners dauther by name vani for dowry death due to harassment by the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 and though this Honorable court disposed off W.P.No.421of2016on2}-04-2olsdirectingthe3rdrespondentShallbe considered his claim as per the victim compensation by following the direction of the Honorable Supreme Court in Laxmi v/s. union of lndia as illegal, violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to pay the compensation to the petitioner to an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-(Three Lakhs only) in the spirit of G.O.M.S. No.9, Dated 07-03-2015 and Judgment of Suprem Court in Suresh and another Vs. State of Haryana 2015 (1) ALT (Crl.) 263 (SC) lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to pay the compensation to the petitioner to an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-(Three Lakhs only) in the spirit of G.O.M.S. No. 9, Dated 07-03-2015 and Judgment of Suprem Court in Suresh and another Vs. State of Haryana 2015 (1) ALT (CH.) 263 (SC) on account of death of his dauther by name Vani for dowry death due to harassment by the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 pending disposal of the above case and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PULLA RAO YELLANKI Counsel for the Respondent No.1,4 & 5: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: - - - - Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.33371 OF 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition is trled under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the Foliowing relief/s:- "...to issue Writ, Order clr l)irection, more particularly one in the nature of Writ o[ Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in not paying the compensetion to an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-(Ihree I-akhs oniy) in the spirit of G.O.N{.S. No. 9, f)ated 07 -03-2015 and Judgment of Supreme Court in Suresh arrd another Vs. Statc of Haryana 2015 (1) ALT (Crl.) 263 (SC) on account of death of petitioners daughter by name Vani for dowry death due to harassment by the Respondent Nds. 6 and 7 and though this Honorable Court disposed off W.P.No.42l of 2016 on 28-04-2018 directing the 3rd responderrt shall be considered his claim as per the victim compensation by following the direction of the Honorable Supreme Court in l,axmi v/s.union r:f Inida as illegal, violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequendv dfuect the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to pay the compensation to the peritioner to an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-Clhree Lakhs only) in the spirit of G.O.M.S. No. 9, Dated 07-03-2015 andJudgment of Supreme Court in Suresh and another Vs. State of Haryana 201,5 (1) '\LT (Ci.) 263 (SC) and pass......."

2. Heard Mr.S.Ramesh, learned counsel flor the petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Governrrrent Pleader for Home appearing fcrr respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3.1,. Learncd counsel fot the petitioner submits that the preserlt writ petition has been filed challenging the inaction of fesPondent Nos. 1 to 3 in not disbursing the victim compensation amount of 2 Rs.3,00,000/- as provided under G.O.Ms.No.9, Home (Courts-A) Department, datcd 01.03.201,5, which notified the Telangana -fhe petitioner, therefore, Victim Compensation Scheme, 201,5. seeks an appropriate direction to the respondents to release the said amount in accordance with law

3.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had eadier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 421 ot

201.6, wherein this Court, by order dated 28.04.201,8, directed respondent No. 3 to consider the petitioner's claim fot compensation under the said Scheme, in line with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme (,ourt rn l-.axmi u. Union of India, (201,4) 4 SCC 427, which emphasized the mandatory nature of victim compensation under Section 357 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1,973 (Cr.P.C.). Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner approached respondent No. 3 seeking payment of victim compensation. However, by the impugned order dated 07.08.2018, respondent No. 3 declined to sanction the compensation under the Scheme. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to disburse tt# J compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as envisaged under the Victim Compensation Scheme, 201,5.

4.1. Learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Legal. Services Authoriw and the Assistant Government Pleader For Home, submits that the directions of this Court in S7.P. No. 421 ot

201.6 have been duly complied with. 'Ihe petitioner's application for compensation was considered in accordance with the Scheme, but was returned on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit a dependency certificate, which is a mandatory requitement under Rule VI(c) of the 'felangana Victim Compensation Scheme, 201,5.

4.2 It is thereflore submitted that the impugned order is legally justified, and in the absence o[ any tenable ground, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have careflully pcrused the record and considered the rival submissions advanced bv the learned counsel on either side.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though his daughter died due to dowry harassment, which amounts to a dowry death, , the authorities have wrongly denied victim compensation under the 4 TelanganaVictimCompensationScheme,20|5,whichprovidesfor payment of Rs.3,00,000/- in such cases' T.onperusaloftheScherneissuedunclerG.o.Ms.No.gdated oT.o3.20l,5,itisevidentthatRuleVldealswitheligrbilityfor compensation. Sub-rule (c) thereof is relevant to the preseflt case and reads as follows: ..on an application made by the victim or his dependents to the Legal Services Authority for arvard of compensation under sub-section (4) ofsection35TAoftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,lgT3,wherethe offender is not traced or identificd and where no uial takes place, the r\uthority may arvard compensation as per the provisions of the Scheme." B.AplainrearJingofthisprovisioninclicatesthatavictimor his/her dependenrs may appl.v to the Legal Services Authority for award of compensation under the Scheme. However, as righdy pointed out by the respondents, such dependency must be substantiated by ^ valid certificate issued by the competent authoriry, as requited under the Scheme' ( f 5 g. Admittedty, the petitioner did not enclose arry such dependency certificate with his application. Hence, the decision of respondent No. 3 (the Secredry, District Legal Services Authoriry) to retufn the application for want of the requisite certificate is consistent with the procedural rcquirements and the spirit of thc Scheme. The Telang na Victim Compensation Scheme is intended to ensure transparency and prevent misuse, and thereflore, compliance with its evidentiary rcquirements is mandatory.

10. This Court finds no infirmity or impropriety in the action of respondent No. 3, who merely required the petitioner to substantiate his claim in accordance with law. Howevef, it is equally true that procedural requirements should not defeat the beneficial object of the Scheme, which is to provide fnancial assistance to victims or their dependents in cases o[ crime or loss, as emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in L-axmi u. Union of India Q01,4) 4 SCC 427. Thereflore the victim compensation provisions must be Iiberally construed to eflfectuate the Purpose of Section 357 A Cr.P.C. \ t. \ i I I I i : 6 1,L. In view of the above discussion, while upholding the action of respondent No. 3 as procedurally valid, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the petitioner liberty to file a fresh application beflore the District Legal Services Authoriry (respondent No. 3) along with a valid dependency certificate issued by the competent authority.

1.2. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh application along with the required dependency certificate, within ninery (90) days from the date o[ receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such filing, the l)istrict Legal Services Authority shall consider the application afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, the provisions o[ the Telangana Victim Compensation Scheme, 201,5

13. In light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions and liberry. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if anv, shall stand closcd. SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII ECTION OFFICER To, 1- T.he Principal secret?ry for Home, The state of rerangana, secretariat,, 2' f.fq S^ecretary, The State Leqal Services Authority, for the Telangana State, Hyderabad--"ir-'rs'vvvrvlqr.ql. High Court Complex at Hyde-rabad. r ' ' 7 I \

4. 5. 6. 7. B

9. BN BSv I { -'-'1 \, i ;'t,i I '{ c) i) o 5 ttB u?$ * HIGH COURT DATED:2511112025 ORDER WP.No.33371 of 2018 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1 a -r^q