S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. In this writ proceeding, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to the Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi (first respondent, hereafter "GNCTD") and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (second respondent, hereafter "MCD") for the payment of compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-, alleging that negligence and dereliction of public duty on their part resulted in untimely death of her husband, Sh. Sita Ram (hereafter "the deceased").

2. The brief facts are that the deceased, a fruit vendor, carried on his trade from a roadside "Redi/" "Thela" (hand-cart). On the fateful day the deceased was selling fruits when two fighting bulls came by. In the ensuing melee he fell, was entangled between the fighting bulls and was badly mauled. He was immediately shifted to the GTB Hospital where he remained under treatment till 23.1.05, when he finally succumbed to his injuries and breathed his last. The postmortem report revealed that the cause of death was shock due to cranio-cerebral injuries produced by blunt force impact. All injuries are and possible by assault by bull.

3. The event was recorded by the police, in a First Information Report (FIR); in support, the deceaseds brother had been examined, and his statement recorded by the police. An inquest was ordered by the authorities into the cause of death. After considering the materials, the Final Inquest Report concluded that death of the deceased was due to injuries sustained in course of a bullfight, in which he got inadvertently dragged.

4. The petitioner states that the untimely demise of her husband who was the sole earning member, has left the family, consisting of herself (aged 39 years) and her five minor children (two sons aged 17 and 12 years and three daughters aged between 13 to 16 years) and parents of the deceased (aged 70 and 68 years), in grave financial distress and to fend for themselves. It is stated that the deceased was earning around Rs. 5,000/- per month.

.5. The petitioner alleges dereliction of duty on part of the respondents and states that the MCD should have taken appropriate steps to ensure that stray bulls did not roam the public streets. The petitioner urges having represented to the MCD on 16.6.2005 requesting compensation and thereafter, to having approached several officials of the respondents, who assured her, support. These, it is contended were of no avail, as nothing was done to redress her grievances. She urges that the deceased, an Indian Citizen, lost his life due to negligence of the respondents, thus his fundamental right, guaranteed under Article 21, stood violated. The respondents infracted in executing the public duty as a result of which, two bulls mangled the deceased causing his untimely demise. This death has left the rest of the family to the mercy of fate, and to fend for themselves, as he was the sole bread-winner of the family and as such compensation should be awarded in their favour and against the respondents. The deceased was 40 years of old at the time of his death and due to his premature demise not only the daily household needs have suffered a setback but also his children future has become an abyss, as there is no means of funding their education.

6. The GNCTD, through Deputy Secretary (Home), in its counter affidavit states that as per order dated 21.9.2006 of the GNCTD compensation can only be granted in specified cases namely, bomb blasts, communal and other riots, terrorist attacks; Fire and Other Accidents (caused by individual or natural calamities); Loss of Movable Property (in riots); Damage to residential unit (In riots/fire/natural calamities/ [other than jhuggies]); Damage to jhuggies (in case of fire/riots etc.). A copy of the order dated 21/9/2006 is annexed.

7. It is further pointed out that in another Writ Petition (No. 14175/2005, titled Vikas Jain v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) this Court had recorded, by order dated 30.8.2006, that the task of ensuring Del