Negligence of Municipal Authorities in failing to control stray dogs resulted in a child's death; they are liable for compensation under Article 21 of the Constitution.

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 have washed their hands by giving a lump sum of 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 Odisha Municipal Act, 1950 and/or any other statute for payment of any compensation in case of such