Disaster Management Act, 2005

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to comply with the order dated 04.10.2021 passed by this Court and award compensation under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (‘Act’ for short).

2. Heard the learned counsel Smt. V. Vidya Iyer appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Shivaraj S Ballolli, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader representing the respondent Nos.2 to 4.

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:

The petitioner is a resident of Hosapete Town, Bellary District. The allegation is that the roads in the town were in pathetic condition and the drainage system was totally inappropriate. The drains were not covered as was required in law which would mean that they were open drains, manholes among other things. On 15-07-2013 heavy rains lashed out at Hosapete resulting in complete flooding of the roads and putting the lives of the citizens to great risk and jeopardy. On the fateful day, the son of the petitioner who was 6 years old falls into the drain which was not covered, the water that was in the drain washes away the child resulting in the death of the child. The death of the child was due to negligence of the respondents. The respondents would mean, the City Municipal Council, Hospete. After about 3 months of the incident, the petitioner/father stakes a claim for compensation on account of the death of his son on sheer negligence of the City Municipal Council, Hospete. The moment the claim is made, a criminal case is registered against the petitioner himself by the Officers of Hosapete alleging offence punishable under Section 176 of the IPC. The said registration of a crime was called in question by the petitioner before this Court in Crl.P.100048 of 2018 which comes to be allowed and the registration of the crime and C.C.1145 of 2013 comes to be quashed.

4. The petitioner, by then, had submitted representations seeking compensation. When all had gone unheeded, he knocks at the doors of this Court in W.P.84466 of 2013 seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.30 lakhs for the death of his son. This Court permitted him to withdraw the petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation. Representation was submitted, it again goes unheeded. The petitioner reaches this Court yet again, in W.P.113542 of 2019. This Court, in terms of its order dated 04-10-2021 disposes the writ petition with a direction to take necessary steps to grant adequate compensation. The petitioner again represents. The representation again did not yield any result, he is again before this Court, for the third time, in the subject petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the death of his son is due to negligence on the part of the Municipal Authorities who left the drain open and the son of the petitioner gets washed away by falling into the open drain. It is the case that the petitioner is entitled to compensation under the Act with particular reference to Section 39 of the Act. She would contend that it is sheer callousness on the part of the State in not granting any compensation despite passage of 10 years of the petitioner wanting to get compensation, on the death of his son.

6. Per-contra, all the respondents in unison would submit in one voice that the entitlement of the petitioner has to be assessed under the Act and what is maximum payable would be paid if reasonable time is granted, the representation of the petitioner would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law.

7. During the course of hearing of the petition, the aforesaid submission of the respondents which was in unison was rejected and a direction to comply was issued pending consideration of the case. The respondents within two weeks from such direction grants compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and places compliance before the Court. The compensatio