JAYANT NATH, J.

1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners, the legal representatives of the deceased Maqsood who died in an unfortunate incident on 23.09.2014 in the National Zoological Park, Mathura Road, New Delhi. Petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased, petitioner No.2 is the mother and petitioner No.3 is the younger brother aged 18 years of the deceased.

2. On 23.09.2014, deceased Maqsood visited the Zoo. At around 1.00 PM, he suddenly fell into the dry moat, i.e. the white tiger?s enclosure. It is stated that on account of the fall, his leg got fractured and he was unable to move. On seeing the white tiger which was roaming nearby, Maqsood called for help. The tiger sniffed him and kept sniffing him for about 15 minutes. Thereafter, it attacked Maqsood and dragged him away to the other end of the enclosure and mauled him to death. His lifeless body was dragged around for some time. FIR No. 543/14 of the said incident was registered under Section 304A of IPC against un-named persons. It is the contention of the petitioners that the Zoo Authorities committed gross negligence and did not follow the guidelines, rules and norms under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. It is urged that for 15 minutes Maqsood was alive in the cage of the tiger yet the Zoo Authorities failed to rescue him. Timely intervention could have saved his life.

3. The following submissions are made to support the contention about the negligence on the part of the Zoo Authorities:

(a) Only one untrained guard was on duty for controlling the large crowd of daily visitors for such a large area like the white tiger?s enclosure. Considering the number of visitors, more guards were required to control the crowd.

(b) The moat which acts as a barrier had not been filled with water. Had there been water, it would have prevented the tiger to come close to the deceased.

(c) The guard on duty must have been trained to use tranquilizer guns but there was no arrangement for immediate use of the tranquilizer gun.

(d) For an emergency situation, ladders, water supply, tranquilizer guns, alarms, etc. should have been kept handy. Had there been a collapsible ladder near the spot, the guard could have saved Maqsood?s life by pulling him out of the enclosure.

(e) The tiger?s enclosure is guarded by a three-tier fencing comprising a 2.5 feet high metal fence, a shrub area and finally a cemented wall. The fencing is hardly 2.5 feet high. Even a child can cross such barricading. It is urged that anybody could fall into the enclosure, if he looks down and loses his balance. The Zoo authorities were obliged to take better precautions to avert such a happening.

(f) As per the guidelines of the Central Zoo Authority for keeping an effective watch on the animals and visitors, at least one watch tower of 5 meter height has to be provided. There was none.

(g) The Zoo Authorities had no emergency plan and the only option, they had when Maqsood fell in the moat was to try to call the animal back inside his cage by making noises.

4. Hence, based on the above it is urged that the life of Maqsood was lost because the Zoo Authorities who had the responsibility to protect and take care of the visitors to the Zoo had failed to discharge their duties.

5. Based on the above allegations, the petitioners have prayed for suitable compensation and damages with special costs and penalties to the petitioners i.e. estimated at Rs.50 lacs for the negligent acts of respondents No.1 to 4.

6. Delhi Police have filed their counter affidavit. They have not mentioned the exact cause of the incident in the counter affidavit. It is however stated that as per the post-mortem report, the cause of the death was neurogenic shock consequent to multiple injuries over the neck leading to crushing and severance of cervical spine and cord. It is further stated that as per the post-mortem report, no fracture in the leg of the deceased was found. It is stated that no eye witness has come forward to jo