The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the State Government to compensate for loss of life due to wild animal attacks and the duty to protect citizens guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

Gauri Godse J.

1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. This Petition is filed invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 18th March 2019 issued by Respondent No.2-Regional Forest Officer. The Petitioner seeks further directions against the Respondents to pay compensation to the Petitioner as per Government Resolution dated 11th July 2018, on account of death of her husband due to attack by wild Boar.

FACTS OF THE CASE :

3. The Petitioner is widow of one Shri Arun Arvind Redij who died in an accident that was caused due to an attack by a wild boar. Late Shri Arun Arvind Redij (“the deceased”) was working as Head Mechanic at ST workshop at Ratnagiri, Malnaka. On 5th February 2019 he was returning from his duties and was travelling from Ratnagiri to Chanderai on his two-wheeler vehicle, through his regular commuting road at around 2 am. He encountered a wild boar. Due to attack by the wild boar the deceased met with an accident and got hit on the road, which caused serious injuries to him and ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries on 5th February 2019 at around 7:20 a.m.

4. The said accident was reported to the local police station at Ratnagiri, Gramin (“the said police station”) and spot panchanama was conducted by the said police station. FIR was registered by the said police station. The postmortem of the deceased was also conducted. The spot panchanama records that a wild boar attacked and collided with the two-wheeler of the deceased, which resulted into an accident and caused the death. Spot panchanama was conducted on the very same day of the accident by the said police station. A copy of the FIR, spot panchanama and postmortem report are annexed to the Petition.

5. The deceased was survived by his widow who is the Petitioner in this petition. Petitioner on 11th February 2019 made an application to Respondent no.2-Regional Forest Officer, Ratnagiri inter alia seeking compensation for the loss of life of her husband. Petitioner relied upon the Government Resolution dated 11th July 2018 (the said GR) which provides for grant of compensation in case of death of a person due to attack by a wild animal. The said GR provides for grant of compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs in case of death. The Petitioner did not receive any response to her application for compensation. Hence, she repeated her request by another application on 14th March 2019. Respondent No.2 by his letter dated 18th March 2019 informed the Petitioner that her application for compensation was rejected as the information about the accident was not intimated to the nearest Forest Officer within 48 hours of the accident. The communication of Respondent No.2 further stated that the panchanama was not conducted within three days in presence of the forest officer. By giving said reasons application made by the Petitioner for compensation was rejected.

6. Petitioner thereafter made a representation to the State Minister for Forest by making an application dated 26th March 2019. Petitioner in her application reiterated the facts and expressed shock and surprise to the pedantic view taken by Respondent No.2. Petitioner’s representation was given no answer, hence she was constrained to approach this Court by filing present Petition.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:

7. Learned Senior Counsel Mr RS Apte, submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the fact that the deceased had met with an accident due to attack by the wild boar which caused his death, is not disputed by the Respondents. The reason given by Respondent no.2 for rejecting application for compensation is unjustified and not acceptable. The said police station was immediately intimated with respect to the accident and thus the said police station being the State machinery had an obligation to intimate the nearest concerned forest office. Thus, once the accident was not disputed and whe