IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
B.R. Sarangi, ACJ., Murahari Sri Raman, J.
Bibhuti Charan Mohanty - Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. - Respondents
W.P(C) NO. 21267 of 2016
Decided On : 13-12-2023
NEGLIGENCE - STREET DOG ATTACK - Orissa Municipal Act, 1950, Sections 287, 288; Constitution of India, Article 21 - The court discussed the provisions of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950, particularly Sections 287 and 288, which impose a duty on the municipal authorities to control stray animals and ensure public safety. The interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, was also pivotal. The court concluded that the municipal authorities failed in their duty, leading to the tragic death of a child due to a stray dog attack, and thus ordered compensation to the victim's family.
JUDGMENT
B.R. Sarangi, ACJ.
The petitioner, an advocate by profession, has filed this writ petition by way of public interest litigation, seeking direction to the opposite parties to control and check the roaming dogs within the human inhabitants and also take necessary, appropriate or adequate action for the protection of the human lives and to pay compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs to the family of the deceased child.
2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that one male child, namely, Satyabrata Rout, son of Hrudananda Rout at Jagannath Colony under Kumbharpada Police Station, Puri, while playing by the side of his house adjacent to the public road, on 01.12.2016, one after another four roving dogs furiously attacked him in the hunting manner. Hearing his cry, his mother and nearby neighbours came to the spot immediately, but the attack of the street dogs was so furious that within 2 to 3 minutes the child breathed his last. Neither his mother nor the other inmates could rescue the child from the clutches of the hunting dogs. The said child (Satyabrata Rout) was the only son of his parents and his death caused havoc in the lives of the parents so also the relatives.
2.1. The said incident was published on 01.12.2016 in Odia daily newspapers, namely, 'The Samaj' and 'The Amrutadunia' and others. The petitioner also came to know the fact from the reporter/ editor concerned of the aforesaid newspapers. Therefore, he approached this Court by filing this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to control and check the roaming dogs within the human inhabitants and also take necessary, appropriate or adequate action for the protection of the human lives and to pay compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs to the family of the deceased child.
3. Mr. R. Swain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that due to frequent roaming and moving of dogs and other animals in the city serious incidents and road accidents are being caused, for which many people and children are losing their lives. Therefore, the roaming of dogs and other animals in the city should be checked. It is further contended that the frightful incident has happened due to negligence on the part of the State Administration. It is the duty of the State to save and protect the lives of the people as per Article 21 of the Constitution. It is further contended that the father of the deceased child has lost his only son due to attack of the street dogs. Therefore, for the mental agony and sufferings incurred, he should be granted compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs. But, the Municipal Authorities giving a lump sum of shed their hands by Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. To substantiate his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Shobha Ram Rajwa Ram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR Online 2018 CHH 1051 and Yusub v. State of Karnatak, AIR Online 2022 KAR 399.
4. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.4-Puri Municipal Corporation, referring to the counter affidavit, contended that after reported occurrence of the tragic incident, opposite party no.4-Puri Municipality undertook suitable measures ABC (Animal Birth Control) programme. A total of 1620 (sixteen hundred twenty) numbers of stray dogs have been brought under sterilization operation and the said process is continuing. So far as compensation to the family of the deceased child is concerned, he contended that there is no provision under the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 and/or any other statute for payment of any compensation in case of such unfortunate incident. Therefore, no liability arises for Puri Municipality in case of any death that may have occurred because of attack by stray dogs. But however, considering the gravity of the matter and dealing with the instant case sympathetically as well as giving due regard to the order of this Court, the Executive Off
Delhi Jal Board v. National Campaign for Dignity and Rights to Sewerage and Allied Workers
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory Delhi, Administrator
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab
Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujurat
K. Narasimha Murthy v. Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Kiranabala Dandapat v. Secy. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. AIR 1998 Ori 159
L.K. Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan and Otrs.
Lucknow Development Authroity v. M.K. Gupta
Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr.Sukumar Mukherjee
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Corporation
Ramesh Kumar Nayak v. Union of India
Sanjay Phophaliya v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.
State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas
State of Maharashtra V. Chandrabhan
Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Anupam Tripathi v. Union of India and others (2016) 13 SCC 492
Chameli Singh v. State of U.P.
Consumer Unity and Trust Society v. Chairman and Managing Director
The court established that municipal authorities have a statutory duty to ensure public safety by controlling stray animals, and failure to do so constitutes negligence, which can result in liability....
This judgment affirms the entitlement to compensation for death due to negligence under Article 226, establishing State liability for safety in public premises and applicability of res ipsa loquitur.
Compensation for violations of fundamental rights under public law is based on strict liability, independent of private law claims.
The court established that the principle of res ipsa loquitur applies in cases of State negligence, allowing for compensation claims without needing to prove fault.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.