Court Mandates Time-Bound Disposal of Representations for Compensation under SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Rules

The petitioner, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, was a minor when she was sexually assaulted by one Ranjeet Lodhi.

A First Information Report (Crime No. 293/2019) was registered under Sections 363, 366, 376, and 190 of the IPC; Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act; and relevant sections of the SC/ST Act.

On September 30, 2023, the trial court convicted the accused.

Following the conviction, the petitioner submitted a representation (Annexure P/4) to the District Collector (Respondent No. 2) seeking statutory compensation under the SC/ST Rules, which remained undecided.

Consequently, the petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging administrative inaction.

1. Whether the respondent authorities' failure to decide on the petitioner’s representation for compensation constitutes an actionable inaction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a time-bound consideration of her claim for compensation under the statutory scheme of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules.

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, which mandate the provision of relief and compensation to victims of specified atrocities.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers High Courts to issue directions to state authorities to ensure the performance of statutory duties and the protection of legal rights.

The Court observed that the petitioner is not challenging a specific order but rather the "alleged inaction" of the authorities in processing her compensation claim following the conviction of the accused.

The Court noted that the petitioner had already moved a detailed representation to Respondent No. 2, which had been pending for a considerable time.

Without adjudicating on the merits of the petitioner's eligibility—specifically her caste status or the quantification of relief—the Court determined that the "ends of justice" required the competent authority to perform its administrative duty by passing a reasoned order.

The Panel Lawyer for the State did not object to a direction for time-bound consideration.

The Court ordered that a reasoned and speaking order must be passed within sixty (60) days of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

If found entitled, the authority must take immediate steps for the release of the admissible amount.

The Court clarified it expressed no opinion on the merits of the claim, leaving the independent decision to the respondent.