Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 30981
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Suraj Govindaraj, J
Yusub Sanadi – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 110352 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Santosh Pujari
For the Respondents: Praveen K. Uppar, V. Shivaraj Hiremath
Municipal authorities bear a strict public law liability to ensure citizen safety against stray animal attacks. Failure to implement mandatory birth control and population management regulations constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to life, justifying compensatory awards under writ jurisdiction.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 21, 226 and 227 - Fatal attack by stray dogs - Public law remedy for compensation - Strict liability of municipal authorities to ensure safety - Right to life extends to right to live a dignified and meaningful life, imposing an obligation on the State and its agencies to prevent encroachment on such rights - Award of compensation under writ jurisdiction is a remedy for established contravention of fundamental rights where principles of sovereign immunity do not apply. (Paras 12.3, 13.1, 13.2)
(B) Writ of Mandamus - Statutory duty to control stray dog population - Failure to implement regulations (Animal Birth Control Rules, 2001) - Municipal authorities failing to provide necessary infrastructure such as dog pounds, shelters, ambulances, and sterilization facilities are liable for resulting fatalities - Authorities cannot shift blame to lack of funds or policy inaction when public safety is at stake. (Paras 12.3, 12.8, 12.11, 12.12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s minor child was fatally attacked by a pack of stray dogs while playing near his residence. The child sustained severe injuries and succumbed to them despite medical intervention. The petitioner sought compensation for the loss, alleging negligence and failure of the local authorities to perform their statutory duties regarding stray dog management and public safety.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the municipal authorities are under a mandatory public and statutory duty to safeguard citizens from stray dog attacks. As the incident occurred due to the inaction of these authorities, the state-linked bodies are held strictly liable for the death, regardless of the absence of explicit negligence suits, as this is a matter of constitutional violation of the right to life.
Issues: (1) Whether municipal authorities possess a public and statutory duty to protect citizens from stray animal attacks; (2) whether the respondent authorities are liable to pay compensation for the death under public law; (3) what measures are required to ensure future compliance with safety regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: Violation of the fundamental right to life under Article 21, due to the failure of public authorities to implement statutory animal control measures, entitles the victim's legal heirs to claim compensation under public law. Monetary award in writ jurisdiction acts as a deterrent and a palliative for state failure to protect its citizens.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; municipal authority directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10 Lakhs with interest and costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background involving the death of a minor due to a dog attack. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. contentions regarding the failure of municipal authorities to perform statutory duties. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. statutory obligation of municipal authorities to ensure public safety from stray dogs. (Para 12) |
| 4. strict liability of the state to award compensation under article 226 for fundamental rights violations. (Para 13) |
| 5. final directions, order for compensation, and compliance monitoring. (Para 14) |
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTIONS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT/SANCTION COMPENSATION OF RS.25,00,000/- (RUPEES TWENTY FIVE LAKHS ONLY) FOR THE LOSS SUFFERED BY THE PETITIONER DUE TO THE DEATH OF HIS SON MASTER ABBASALI YUSUB SANADI AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 19.4.2022, THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other Writ or directions directing the respondents to grant/sanction compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only), for the loss suffered by the petitioner due to the death of his son Master Abbasali Yusub Sanadi.
b. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or directions directing the Respondents, to ensure that the laws, rules, regulations, circulars, notifications etc., that have been issued by the Central Government agencies and the state government agencies are implanted at the earliest to avoid any further event, such as death due to dog bite and protect the life and liberty of petitioner girl child aged around 7 Years.
c. Pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The petitioner is engaged in masonry work. On 28.11.2018, the younger son of the petitioner, Master Abbasali Yusub Sanadi, who was aged about 22 months, was attacked by 4 to 5 street dogs while he was playing behind his house after attending nature’s call and dragged him to a nearby agricultural field and mauled him, causing serious injuries to his face, head, thighs etc. Though he was immediately taken to K.L.E’S Dr.Prabhakar Kore Hospital, Belagavi, he could not be saved and he succumbed to the aforesaid injuries. The doctor had opined in the autopsy report that the death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained.
3. When the fact of this attack and death was reported in newspapers, though the respondents had offered to help, no compensation was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner addressed various communications to the respondents but in vain. The petitioner aggrieved by the death of his minor son due to the attack of street dogs is before this Court claiming for the aforesaid reliefs more particularly compensation as detailed in the prayer.
4. Vide order dated 11.11.2020, this Court had directed for interim compensation of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a from the date of death of petitioner’s son till the date of deposit. A sum of Rs.77,458/- (Rs.50,000/- with interest) has been released and withdrawn by the petitioner on 25.06.2021. The remaining 1,00,000/- and interest accrued thereon has been deposited in a fixed deposit account in a nationalized bank.
5. Sri.Santosh Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that:
5.1. There is a duty cast on the respondents to ensure that the street and human habitation of the villages/cities etc., are free of dogs and that the humans inhabiting the areas are protected from any attack by such street dogs or otherwise. This duty has not been discharged by the respondents resulting in street dogs attacking the petitioner’s minor son.
5.2. A statutory duty is vested wi
