ORDER:

The petitioner by way of writ of mandamus prays for compensation against the respondents for their failure in taking necessary precautionary measures while the petitioner’s son G.Krishna Chaitanya, young boy of 20 years, studying B.E. in Electronics and Communications, while in a pleasure trip to Tatipudi Reservoir of Gosthani river situated in Tatipudi Village, Gantyada Mandal, Vizianagaram District accidentally fell in the reservoir and died on 08.01.2009.

2. The grievance of the petitioner against the respondents 1 to 3 is that they abdicated their duty to maintain the reservoir, which is a notified tourist place, with all protective facilities for safety and security of the visitors, meaning thereby, they failed to protect the fundamental right of the deceased guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, whereas the 4th respondent is concerned, the college authorities also failed to discharge their duty by sending a responsible officer along with students to properly guide them during their visit to the reservoir. The petitioner thus claimed compensation of Rs.25.00 lakhs against the respondents.

3. The respondents 1 to 3 did not file counter. However, the 2nd respondent filed counter opposed the writ petition on the main contention that there was no breach of duty on the part of the respondents. The Reservoir is only a restricted place meant for storage of the water and it was not the tourist place. It is further contended that warning boards were placed at the reservoir that swimming and consumption of alcohol are prohibited. Despite the same, the deceased trespassed into the reservoir and fell and died. It is further contended that the writ petition is barred by limitation as the same is filed three years after the death of the deceased.

4. The 4th respondent filed counter contending that it has nothing to do with the unfortunate death of G. Krishna Chaitanya. While admitting that the said Krishna Chaitanya was a student of B.E., Electronics and Communication Engineering in the 4th respondent institute, it is stated that he was a day scholar of the college and the 4th respondent institute has never organized any pleasure trips to the students and therefore the question of its taking any precautions while the students went for pleasure trip does not arise. The 4th respondent has no control over the students and their activities outside the college premises, hence the 4th respondent does not owe any responsibility for the death of the deceased. The deceased on his own accord went to the reservoir along with other students and accidentally fell and died.

Hence the writ petition is not maintainable against the 4th respondent.

5. The petitioner filed rejoinder and denied the counter allegations. The petitioner emphasizes that the Reservoir is a tourist place as notified by the Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation as well as the District Tourism Department.

(a) It is further submitted that even prior and subsequent to the death of G. Krishna Chaitanya some other persons fell into the reservoir and died. For instance, after the death of G. Krishna Chaitanya one Shaik Mohammad Sibanifell and died and in that connection Crime No.80/2014 was registered. Similarly, Komal Shahebu died and Crime No.153/2014 was registered. So also, Lokaee Ramu Naidu, Chilakalapudi Village died and Crime No.113/2015 was registered. So also, Akula Vijaya Kumar and Tirumala Raju died and Crime No.135/2015 was registered. One Sheku Abdul Khadar Jilani, KammaVeedhi, Vizianagaram District also fell into the reservoir and died. All these aforesaid deaths were occurred due to negligence of the Authorities. It is true, swimming and drinking of alcohol are prohibited at the reservoir. However the fact is that people were allowed as tourists to the reservoir but no precautions were taken by the respondents. Hence the respondents are very much responsible for the death of the petitioner’s son and liable to pay compensation.

6. Heard Sri S