Gatakala Venkateswarlu v. Union of India & Ors

1. The petition impugns the order dated 11.08.2009 of the Ministry of External Affairs made in compliance ofthe order dated 01.10.2007 ofthe Division Bench ofthis Court in LPA No.1080/2006 earlier preferred by the petitioner.

2. This writ petition has been preferred after two years from the order impugned.

3. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.4645/2001 in this Court averring that he is aChartered Accountant; that he shifted to Kuwait in 1980 and was working as aFinancial Controller in one company; that when Iraq occupied Kuwait in August, 1990, he had to leave behind all belongings and returned to Bombay in September, 1990; that when normalcy was restored in Kuwait, he returned to Kuwait in June, 1991 and was during the period WP(C) 7107/2011 ' Page 1ofA 2011:DHC:16040 A September, 1990 to June, 1991 unemployed in India. ^

4. It was further the case of the petitioner in the earlierwrit petition that though the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) floated a Scheme for payment of compensation to persons who had lost and suffered during the GulfWar and invited claims therefor but such claims could be submitted only through the concerned Government; that he accordingly • submitted his claim with the Embassy of India in Kuwait but owing to the negligence ofthe Embassy in not forwarding his claim for consideration, the same remained unpaid. The writ petition was thus filed seeking the amount due to the petitioner as per the Scheme ofUNCC from the Government of India (GOI).

5. The said earlier writ petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 10.02.2006 inter alia on the ground that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner was a civil suit and the claims of the petitioner could not be adjudicatedin writjurisdiction.

6. Aggrieved therefrom, LPA No.1080/2006 (supra) was preferred by the petitioner and which was disposed ofvide judgment dated 01.10.2007. The Division Bench of this Courtthough held that the neghgence being of the GOI in not forwarding the claim of the petitioner for consideration by UNCC, the GOI would be liable for the compensation to which the petitioner may be found entitled to, directed the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs to examine the claims submitted by the petitioner and to pass a speaking order with respect to the said claims. Liberty was given to the petitioner to produce all relevant material / documents to substantiate and show loss ofproperty, personal items, income etc. caused to him before WP(C) 7107/2011 Page 2of[4] the Secretary, Ministry ofExternal Affairs. The said Secretary was directed to determine the quantum payable and make payment along with interest @9% per annum with effect from 1^' January, 2001 till payment. It was further provided: "In case the appellant is not satisfied with the quantum awarded and the decision, he shall be at liberty to file a civil suit to substantiate and prove his claim". •m 7. In pursuance to the aforesaid directions ofthe Division Bench ofthis Court, the order impugned inthis petition was made on 11.08.2009. It was inter alia held that the petitioner had failed to substantiate his claims and was thus not entitled to any compensation.

8. The counsel for the petitioner contends that this petition has been filed after two years because the petitioner has now in pursuance to RTI queries learnt that besides the documents submitted by the petitioner in the enquiry aforesaid, the GOI had made certain enquiries ofits own also and in response to which had received replies supporting the claim of the petitioner. Attention in this regard is invited to the letters dated 29.07.2009 & 06.04.2011 sent by the Embassy of India, Kuwait to the Foreign Office, New Delhi. It is contended therefi-om that it was confirmed that the petitioner had not been paid salary for the period from 02.08.1990 to 02.06.1991 and that the cost of vehiclewhichthe petitioner claims, had been recovered by the employer ofthe petitioner from the salary ofthe petitioner.

9. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the said reply received one month prior to the order impugned was not considered in the impugned order and the petitioner had no knowledge of the same at that time. The WP(C) 7107/2011 ^ ''' order dated 11.08.2009 is sought to be assailed on the said ground, m counsel further expresses a grievance that the matter has remained pending for long.

10. Though the Division Bench of this Court in the earlier round of litigation held the GOI to be liable for not forwarding the claim of the petitioner but did not interfere with the finding ofthe Single Judge of the remedy for establishing the claim ofthe petitioner being by way ofa civil suit, though an opportunity was granted to the Secretary, Ministry of A External Affairs to if satisfied, make payments to the petitioner. I therefore fail to see as to how now the petitioner can make the claim in this petition. Rather, it appears that because of the order ofthe Division Bench, a fresh lease oflife was given to the claim ofthe petitioner which otherwise was by then time barred; ifthe petitioner continues to pursue the wrong remedy, by way of this writ petition, the three years limitation from the order dated 11.08.2009 will also lapse.

11. The remedy ofthe petitioner in accordance with the judgment, in the earlier round oflitigation, which had attained finality is ofa civil suit and the present petition is misconceived and is dismissed as not maintainable with liberty however to pursue the remedy earlier permitted to the petitioner. No order as to costs. d ^ RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2011/'gsi\' ^