Point of Law : It has come on record that viscera report does not certify the death on account of snake bite (venom) then in these circumstances withholding of monitory compensation in shape of ex-gratia payment is illegal.

JUDGMENT :

1. Set of documents three in number running to four pages produced by learned Standing Counsel is taken on record.

2. Ms. Prachi Shukla, holding brief of Sri Shashi Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sharad Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for respondents no.1 to 3.

3. This is a petition filed by the father of the deceased being Neetu seeking following reliefs:-

"a. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to pay Rs.4 lakhs to the petitioner immediately which has been sanctioned by the respondent no.3 on 06.09.2018 (Annexure No.1);

b. to issue a writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case;

c. to award cost of the petition to the petitioner."

4. Factual matrix as worded in the present writ petition are that the daughter of the petitioner herein namely, Neetu, aged about 18 years, expired due to snake bite on 21.08.2018 at about 1:00 P.M. (Noon). As per the records it reveals that the Tehsildar, Etah conducted an enquiry and tendered his enquiry report on 21.08.2018, wherein the death of the daughter of the petitioner due to snake bite was confirmed. Records further reveal that on 06.09.2018 the respondent no.3, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Etah issued an office order according its approval for grant of Rs.4,00,000/-as compensation. On 15.04.2019 a communication was issued by the respondent no.3 mentioning therein that the petitioner being the father of the deceased was entitled to be paid Rs.4,00,000/-as compensation on account of the death of his daughter due to snake bite.

5. As the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-which was to be paid as a compensation on account of death of the daughter of the petitioner was not extended so proceedings purported to be under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was put to motion by the petitioner and when the same was also not acceded to then an appeal was also preferred by the petitioner and the respondent no.2 by virtue of his letter dated 04.04.2019 directed for the disposal of the application purported to be under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

6. Eventually, Kanoongo (Finance) supplied the information to the wife of the petitioner being the mother of the deceased that the payment of an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was deferred and was made subject to receipt of the viscera report.

7. This Court finds that there is a report at page 20 (Annexure-4) of the paper book dated 13.01.2019, wherein Senior Sub Inspector, Police Station Mirhachi, District Etah has issued a communication addressed to Senior Senior Superintendent of Police, District Etah mentioning therein that the samples so drawn from the deceased were sent for its testing to Forensic Scientific Laboratory, Agra, however, the same could not be processed by the Forensic Scientific Laboratory, Agra on the pretext that the sample can not be tested at Agra and the only Forensic Scientific Laboratory is at Mumbai can do the necessary test. Subsequently, on 02.02.2020 the viscera report was sent to Forensic Scientific Laboratory, Maharashtra at Mumbai through one of the constable so posted therein, a copy thereof has been filed as Annexure-5 to the paper book. Forensic Scientific Laboratory, Maharashtra at Mumbai has shown its inability to conduct testing of the viscera as according to it has no jurisdiction to conduct test of the samples which are outside the territorial jurisdiction of Maharashtra.

8. As the petitioner herein has not been paid the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-which had already been sanctioned by the respondents, thus he has filed the present writ petition.

On 06.04.2022 this Court proceeded to pass the following order:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sharad Chandra Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed