IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present :- Hon’ble Justice Amrita Sinha WPA 21596 of 2024 Binarani Mandal Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the writ petitioner :- Mr. Subhendu Banerjee, Adv.

Mr. Atindriya Chakraborty, Adv.

Ms. Aratrika Paul, Adv.

Mr. Santanu Chakraborty, Adv.

For State :- Ms. Priyamvada Singh, Adv.

Hearing concluded on :- 24.03.2025 Judgment on :- 09.04.2025 Amrita Sinha, J.:-

1. The petitioner is a widow. Her husband died because of tiger attack.

She prays for ex gratia grant in terms of the order of the Forest Department published vide memo 1/123199/2021 dated 26th February, 2021 regarding payment of ex gratia grant to the victims or legal heirs of the victims of depredation caused by wild animals.

2. Reliance has been placed on the order dated 4th October, 2023 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPA No. 18598 of 2023 (Santibala Naskar vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) and several other orders passed in similar facts and circumstances.

3. Learned advocate representing the State respondents opposes the prayer of the petitioner. Reliance has been placed on the instruction forwarded by the Deputy Field Director, Sundarban Tiger Reserve mentioning that the place of occurrence of the incident is a prohibited area for fishing, crab collection etc. None can enter the said place without permission. As the deceased entered into a prohibited area without permission, the claim of his legal heir for ex gratia grant cannot be allowed.

4. It has been argued that entry in the prohibited area is an offence.

Activities like fishing, crab collection and honey collection are allowed in permitted area under the Sundarban Tiger Reserve; the deceased ought not to have entered the prohibited place. The Sajnekhali Wild Life Sanctuary under Sundarban Tiger Reserve is notified under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. The protected areas are very important for conservation of wild life.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagraja & Ors. reported in (2014) 7 SCC 547 held that Article 51A (g) of the Constitution is the magna carta of animal right and Article 21 of the Constitution includes life in all forms including animal life. As the deceased committed an offence by entering into the prohibited area, the State ought not to be burdened with payment of ex gratia amount. Prayer has been made to reject the writ petition.

6. The order of the Forest department dated 26th February, 2021 relying on which the prayer for grant of ex gratia grant has been sought for is annexed to the writ petition. The same mentions that the sanction of payment of compensation for loss of life and property due to depredation by wild animals has been reviewed by the State Government. The Governor was pleased to accord sanction that ex gratia grant will be given to the victims or the legal heirs of the victims of depredation caused by wild animals in the scales as mentioned in the said order. For loss of life, the compensation has been fixed at rupees five lakh subject to certificate regarding cause of death from the appropriate authority.

7. In the instant case, admittedly, there is a certificate and a post mortem report which mentions that the cause of death is tiger attack. The instruction forwarded by the Deputy Field Director, Sundarban Tiger Reserve records that the police report mentioned tiger attack but no field inquiry was conducted and the exact location has not been ascertained. From the petition of the fishermen, it can be understood that the incident occurred in Pachmukhani- 4 forest compartment which lies in the Sundarban Tiger Reserve and the area is the Sajnekhali Wild Life Sanctuary which is a prohibited area for fishing.

8. Though the authority submits that the said area is a prohibited area but there is nothing on record to show that the prohibited area is either cordoned / fenced or demarcated so that the fishermen cannot enter the said place. Assumin