Writ petition challenging rejection of compensation claim for wild animal attack. HC quashed impugned order, directing authorities to decide claim on merits based on hospital records, setting 3-month deadline.
Impugned communication dated 29.06.2017 quashed; respondent to decide claim on merits within 3 months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 wp 10157.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10157 OF 2017
Latifa Dastagir Sayyed .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Vilas P. Savant, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : 13TH AUGUST, 2018.
FINAL ORDER :
. The petitioner claims to be labourer doing work of sugar cane cutting. According to the petitioner, deceased husband of the petitioner was also doing the work of sugar cane cutting. In the mid night of 14.02.2016, when the husband of the petitioner was asleep, at that time the forest animal hyena/Taras attacked the husband of the petitioner. He was admitted in the private hospital and then in the Government Hospital and lateron in Sassoon Hospital, Pune. After the discharge he died on 07.03.2016. Upon his death a complaint was lodged with the police station. Same was registered as A. D. No. 16/2016. The spot panchanama was conducted and thereafter, funeral took
2 wp 10157.17
place. On or about 23.05.2016, the petitioner made an application for payment of compensation towards death of her husband as per the Government policy under the Government Resolution dated 02nd July, 2010 and subsequently modified vide G. R. dated 30th March, 2013, G. R. dated 16.01.2015 and the notification dated 28.11.2016. The application of the petitioner has not been considered on the count that, the complaint was filed for compensation on 23.05.2016. The incident had taken place on 14.02.2015. The Authorized officer had gone on the spot, who could not find any sign of attack by the wild animal and the application is disposed of.
3 wp 10157.17
go on the spot and conduct panchanama of the attack. The petitioner had approached and lodged the complaint after three months, still the officers had been to the spot and could not find any traces of the attack of the wild animal.
4 wp 10157.17
[SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] bsb/Aug. 18
Digitally signed Bhalchandra by Bhalchandra Sudhakar Sudhakar Bodke Bodke Date: 2018.08.16 11:59:15 +0530
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the highcourt should quash the order rejecting the compensation claim due to delayed filing and absence of traces.
Whether the respondent authority is required to consider the claim on merits after verification of initial hospital records.
Latifa Dastagir Sayyed
The State of Maharashtra
S. V. Gangapurwala
Sunil K. Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
