9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 890X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quently, the appellant, who was in her womb, was also affected. 2. The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Registration and Processing of Claims) Scheme, 1985 was framed by the Central Government in exercise of power under section 9 of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985. Clause 5 thereof provides for categorization and registration of claims. The application on behalf of appellant was considered by the Deputy Commissioner, for Bhopal gas victims. The appellant had been examined and a medical dossier prepared at the time of State-sponsored medical examination including X-ray of chest. The reports of the examination on 25.8.1988 showed that the appellant did not suffer from any disease. Therefore, his condition was recorde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 55,000/-. 4. The appellant filed a special leave petition before this Court seeking leave to appeal against the said order of Additional Welfare Commissioner. One of the grounds of challenge was that the Additional Welfare Commissioner had referred to the appellant as 'deceased' and that showed non application of mind. (This however apparently was a typographical error as in the subsequent part of the judgment, the Appellate Commissioner had proceeded on the basis that the appellant is alive and discussed the entire history. Be that as it may.) This Court by order dated 4.5.1999 dismissed the special leave petition as withdrawn, recording the submission on behalf of the appellant that he wanted to apply to the Additional We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he High Court held that it was evident from the order dated 4.5.1999, that this Court found no ground to interfere with the order of the Additional Welfare Commissioner on merits and the SLP was dismissed and liberty was reserved only for the purpose of seeking correction of the typographical error. The appellant has challenged the order of the High Court in this appeal by special leave. 7. It is the contention of the appellant that while disposing of the SLP by order dated 4.5.1999, this Court did not examine the order dated 13.3.1997 of the Additional Welfare Commissioner on merits and the SLP was dismissed as withdrawn to enable him approach the Additional Welfare Commissioner for rehearing and modification and therefore the Additiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
