The main legal point established in the judgment is the State's liability for compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, and the application of the res ipsa loquitur principle to establish negligence in the occurrence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Kanchan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking payment of compensation of Rs. 6 crores for the accidental death of the husband of the petitioner namely, Dr. Ravindra Mohan Prasad, who died of burn injuries on 22.07.2010.

3. Pleadings have been exchanged.

4. On 31.10.2023, we passed the below quoted order :-

"1. On 20.07.2023 we have passed the below quoted order:-

"1. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel prays for further time to take instructions, in compliance of the earlier order dated 20th April, 2023.

2. At present, it appears that act of gross negligence was committed as had resulted in the death of Dr. Ravindra Mohan Prasad. He died of severe burn injuries suffered from flow of molten bitumen into his official residential accommodation from a nearby pit, where such molten bitumen had been stored, without due care taken.

3. Payment of terminal dues to the heirs of the said deceased and grant of compassionate appointment may not be described as compensation for the tortious liability that otherwise arose on the State respondents.

4. Also, it is not clear, if appropriate criminal prosecution has arisen, occasioned by the gross negligent act, noted above. Here, it may be noted, the FIR was registered on the complaint made by the Secretary of the State Government.

5. Prima facie, we find, the facts of the case would commend deeper enquiry unless all remedial and consequential measures are shown to have been taken and appropriate relief by way of compensation etc. granted.

6. Shri Arimandan Singh Rajpoot, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel prays for and is granted two weeks' time to comply with the earlier order and to obtain the written instructions in terms of the facts, noted above.

7. Accordingly, put up on 17th August, 2023 in top ten cases.

8. It is expected that the instructions would contain the stand of respondent nos. 1 and 2, in writing. They will also make full disclosure of the prosecution proceedings arising from the FIR (Annexure No. 2) as also proceedings that may have been initiated against the negligent. The instructions would also disclose existence or otherwise of the policy to grant ex-gratia and other compensation in the event of such occurrences that may be attributed to negligence on the part of State functionaries and their agents and actual compensation paid, if any."

2. Three months have passed since then. However, instructions are still awaited. At the same time, today learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has placed on record the copy of undated instructions received by him.

3. The claim which State agency seeks to escape liability arises from a most unfortunate and shocking occurrence, wherein the government official died of serious burn injuries suffered by him as molten bitumen seeped into his government residential accommodation, from the nearby open pit dug out up government agency.

4. The written instructions issued under the signature of the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, Mirzapur are wholly evasive and irresponsible. Basic facts as to the occurrence being undisputed and the cause being man made we fail to understand how force majeure has been attributed in a cavalier manner. Also in face of disciplinary proceedings disclosed to have been initiated and warnings issued, prima facie case of negligence stands made out.

5. We do not consider it desirable to adjudicate on the dispute at this stage as it appears that the attention of highest administrative authority of the State may first examine the present facts as may lead to a just solution at the hands of the State Government itself.

6. While the Court may not dither to adjudicate the dispute, at the same time we consider it desirable that the matter may first be examined by the appropriate authority functionary of the State Government as may be nominated by the Chief Secretary of the Go