High Court tells Centre, Government to spell out relief measures on Thane

Chennai: The Madras High Court directed the Centre and Tamil Nadu government to spell out the specificrelief measures being taken by them to alleviate hardships of those hit by cyclone 'Thane' in the state in the last week ofDecember 2011.

The First Bench of Chief Justice M Y Eqbal and Justice T S Sivagnanam, gave the direction on a petition by advocateAnanthi Saravanan, seeking relief for victims of the December 30 cyclone in Cuddalore and neighbouring Villupuram districts.

The court directed Saravanan to serve the petition to counsel for the Centre and state government 'to enable them tofile their respective affidavits, stating specifically as to what steps are being taken by the respondents for givingrelief to the cyclone victims and also a preliminary report.

Detailing the havoc caused in the two districts due to the cyclone between Dec 27 and 30, the petitioner, a resident ofCuddalore district and victim, claimed it had destroyed over 3.49 lakh houses and thatched structures, besides disruptingpower supply, communication systems and thousands of hectares of various fruits and nuts including jackfruit, mango, palmoil trees, and groundnut.

Standing paddy crop on over 96,000 hectares and 30,469 hectares of cashew were damaged, he said, adding that about 40persons had died in the state, about 30 in Cuddalore district alone and five in Villupuram district.

Advertisement

The losses suffered by the state due to high velocity winds and rain was about Rs 5,000 crore, the petitioner said.

Saravanan sought a direction to the government to pay Rs 20,000 per hectare per year to farmers for the next 10 years,a mediclaim policy of upto Rs five lakh each year per affected family for 10 years and Rs 10,000 for each agricultural workerwho did not possess land,for the next five years.

Advertisement

He also sought waiver of all kinds of bank loans,including housing loans, agricultural business loans and educationalloans and compensation to farmers who had lost crops and low interest loans to resume cultivation and business activities.

The Bench made it clear they had not expressed any opinion on the merit of the contention of the petitioner.