[1.0] RULE returnable forthwith. Shri Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.1 and Shri Hemang Shah, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.2. [2.0] By way of this petition the petitioner prayed direction to the respondents to release appropriate compensation in accordance with the Gujarat Victim Compensation Scheme, 2016 as she is the victim of an acid attack.

[3.0] Shri Ronith Roy, learned advocate with Shri Anand Yagnik, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that entitlement of the petitioner in accordance with the aforesaid Scheme is not disputed by the respondents. On the contrary she had been granted compensation under the aforesaid Scheme by the "Criminal Injuries Compensation Board" and the "Committee for grant of Compensation to the Victims of Attack other than Acid Attack" (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee") vide meeting convened on 27.11.2017. However, she is ordered to be paid Rs.15,000/- for the reasons mentioned therein. The copy of the said minutes of the meeting dated 27.11.2017 of the aforesaid Committee is annexed with the petition at page 53. However, he has submitted that the day on which she applied for compensation, pursuant to the aforesaid Scheme, the Schedule to the Scheme promulgated on 02.01.2016 at maximum limit for compensation in case of acid attack to be Rs.3 lakhs. Though the Scheme provided for quantum of compensation to be awarded not to exceed the maximum limit as specified in the Schedule, there was some discretion left to the Committee for determining the compensation under the Scheme. However, it is further submitted by him that the Schedule to the aforesaid Scheme 2016 came to be substituted providing minimum

Page 2 of 5

amount of compensation and it is at Rs.3 lakhs for acid attack, and therefore, according to the submission, when the said provision for minimum amount for compensation is provided for in the Scheme since 07.07.2016 and acid attack on the petitioner was subsequent to the amendment to the Scheme provided for minimum amount of compensation, the Committee could not have restricted the amount of compensation awarded to the petitioner at Rs.15,000/-. He has submitted that once the Scheme provides for minimum amount of compensation, it left no discretion to the Committee to award any compensation less than that amount, and therefore, he has submitted that the Committee be directed to reconsider her case and pay her minimum amount of compensation as provided for deducting the amount already paid.

[4.0] Shri Hemang Shah, learned advocate for respondent no.2, who heads the Committee, submitted that there was no serious injury on the body of the victim and considering the gravity and severity of burn injury, the Committee had resolved to grant the amount of Rs.15,000/- to the victim as compensation, and therefore, according to the submission, considering the nature of injury the petitioner is awarded adequate compensation, and therefore, he has submitted that it is reasonable. It is further submitted by him that this is the second application filed by the petitioner for compensation, and therefore, the Committee, at that stage, concluded that there is no such scar on the body of the petitioner - victim. Under the circumstances, the Committee unanimously resolved that there is nothing to do in the matter and it proceeded to dispose of the said second application in a meeting convened on 06.03.2019. Therefore, he has submitted that no interference in the present petition is required.

[5.0] Shri Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government

Page 3 of 5

Pleader, produced on record the Notification dated 26.04.2019 whereby the Gujarat Victim Compensation Scheme 2019 is introduced in supersession of all the Notifications and the Scheme issued in that behalf by the State Government prior thereto, which is ordered to be taken on record. Considering the said Scheme, the Schedule appended thereto at Serial No.13, the victims of acid attack provides for graded minimum and maximum compensation in proportion mentioned therein, and therefore, he has fairly submitted that the day on which the incident occurred of acid attack and when she made an application for compensation, the minimum compensation provided for was Rs.3 lakhs for acid attack to the victim. Thus, he has fairly submitted that the petitioner was entitled to the minimum compensation. [6.0] Shri Hemang Shah, learned advocate for respondent no.2 was provided with the copy of the Gujarat Victim Compensation Scheme, 2019 by Shri Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader, which supersedes all other Schemes floated earlier as also they submitted that considering the provisions made in the Scheme, which was prevalent on the day on which the incident occurred, she was entitled to the minimum amount provided as compensation, which was Rs.3 lakhs, and therefore, learned advocates for the respondents submitted that the matter be remanded back to the Committee for passing appropriate order awarding appropriate compensation. [7.0] Having heard the learned advocates for the appearing parties, it appears that the Committee, which is headed by the then learned Principal Judge, City City Court, Ahmedabad alongwith other Committee members have failed to apply their mind to the Scheme itself, which provided for minimum amount of compensation, which left no discretion in them, and therefore, the existence of serious or grave injury or a scar on the body pales into insignificance. The victim of acid

Page 4 of 5

attack is to be paid minimum amount of compensation once it is found that the claimant is a victim of acid attack. So far as entitlement of the petitioner is never questioned by the Committee and after verifying the same it had earlier awarded Rs.15,000/- as compensation. The order recorded in the minutes dated 06.03.2019 whereby it had refused the request of petitioner for matching compensation as they had already awarded Rs.15,000/- as compensation in a meeting dated 18.12.2017 suffers from total non application of mind, and therefore, the said order so far as it relates to the petitioner recorded in the meeting dated 06.03.2019 is hereby quashed and set aside.

[7.1] The Committee is further directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner keeping in mind the prevalent policy as also the existing policy for the victim compensation, the entitlement and the amount provided for to be awarded as compensation to the victim of acid attack within a period of four weeks from receipt of copy of this order. [8.0] In view thereof, the present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.)

K.K. SAIYED /siji

Page 5 of 5