Disposed

Jan Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Sept 2026WPC/666/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought compensation from the State of Chhattisgarh for the death of her husband, who died of rabies after being bitten by a stray dog. The District Forest Officer had not decided her representation dated 14.07.2020. The court disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits, directing the District Forest Officer to consider and decide the pending representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks. The court also directed that any fresh representation be decided within 45 days.

What did the court decide?

Direction to District Forest Officer, Bilaspur, to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation dated 14.07.2020 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks; any fresh representation to be decided within 45 days.

Jan Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

CGHC010019932021

2026:CGHC:40764

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 666 of 2021

¶7

1 - Jan Bai W/o Late Bhagwat Prasad Aged About 34 Years R/o VillageLimha, Beltara, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilapsur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Tahsildar Tahsil Ratanpur, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - District Forest Officer District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Sarpanch Gram Limha, Tahsil Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶16

For Petitioner :- Mr. S.P. Sannat, Advocate For State :- Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A.

¶17

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order On Board

18.09.2026

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide her claim for grant of compensation to the petitioner and her family members on account of the death of her husband, Late Shri Bhagwat Prasad Yadav, who died on 14.07.2019 allegedly due to a bite by a stray dog. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation before the District Forest Officer, respondent No.3, on 14.07.2020, which, according to the petitioner, is still pending consideration.

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that her husband, Late Shri Bhagwat Prasad Yadav, aged about 29 years, was bitten by a stray dog on or about 14.05.2019 while residing at Gram Limha, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Initially, he was treated at home, but when his condition deteriorated, he was admitted to the Community Health Centre, Pali, District Korba, where he died on 14.07.2019 during treatment. According to the post-mortem report, the cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure due to rabies caused by an animal bite. The petitioner thereafter intimated the concerned Police Station regarding his death and also submitted a representation dated 14.07.2020 before the District Forest Officer, Bilaspur, seeking compensation, which, according to the petitioner, has not yet been decided. A panchnama issued by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Limha has also been placed on

¶23

¶24

record. The petitioner further relies upon the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1856/2018, Sobha Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh , in support of her claim for compensation.

¶25

Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:-

¶26

“i. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the concerned respondents to provide the compensation to the petitioner.

¶27

ii. Any appropriate direction or order in favor of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.”

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to compensation on account of the death of her husband, Late Shri Bhagwat Prasad Yadav, who died due to rabies allegedly caused by a stray dog bite. It is submitted that the claim is supported by the Chhattisgarh State Government circular dated 09.06.2015 and Rule 29 of the applicable Rules, 1999, which casts responsibility upon the Gram Panchayat for control of dogs. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased left behind two minor children, aged about 9 years and 2 years respectively, whose responsibility now rests upon the petitioner. It is also submitted that despite the representation dated 14.07.2020 submitted before the District Forest Officer seeking compensation, no decision has been taken thereon till date. Reliance has also been placed upon the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C)

¶29

¶30

No.1856/2018, Sobha Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh , in support of the claim for compensation.

¶31

Learned State Counsel, opposing the petition, submits that the petitioner is not entitled to compensation as the facts of the present case are distinguishable from those in Shobha Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh . It is submitted that, although the deceased was allegedly bitten by a stray dog on 14.05.2019, he did not seek appropriate medical treatment or take anti-rabies vaccination for nearly two months and instead continued with local remedies, and was admitted to the Community Health Centre, Pali, only on 14.07.2019, where he died on the same day. The Medical Officer has also opined that the death occurred due to the deceased not receiving timely treatment within 72 hours. Learned State Counsel therefore submits that the deceased himself failed to take reasonable medical precautions and that no negligence or failure in discharge of statutory duty on the part of the State authorities has been established. It is further submitted that there is no provision under the Revenue Book Circular for grant of compensation merely on account of a stray dog bite and that, in view of the law laid down in Anupam Tripathi v. Union of India , (2016) 13 SCC 492, a fact-finding enquiry into the responsibility of the State is necessary before any compensation can be considered. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in Corporation of Calicut v. Veluthedath Bindu and the interim orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court

¶32

¶33

in connected dog-bite matters, to contend that the petition does not warrant grant of compensation.

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State Counsel and perused the material available on record.

¶35

From the pleadings and documents placed on record, it appears that the petitioner’s claim for compensation arises out of the alleged death of her husband due to rabies following a stray dog bite. The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 14.07.2020 before the District Forest Officer, Bilaspur, claiming compensation. The respondents, however, have disputed the petitioner’s entitlement to compensation and have raised, inter alia, the issue of delay in obtaining medical treatment and the absence of any statutory liability on the part of the State authorities. These aspects require consideration by the competent authority in accordance with law and on the basis of the material available on record.

¶36

In view of the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3/District Forest Officer, Bilaspur, to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending representation dated 14.07.2020, if it is still pending, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties and considering the relevant documents as well as the objections raised by the respondents.

¶37

¶38

The said exercise shall be completed, as far as possible, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

It is further directed that, if the petitioner chooses to submit a fresh representation/application before the competent authority in respect of her claim, the same shall also be considered and decided, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of 45 days from the date of filing of such representation/application, after affording proper and effective opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties.

¶40

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits or entitlement of the petitioner to compensation, and the competent authority shall take an independent decision in accordance with the applicable rules, circulars and law.

¶41

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶42

sd/-

¶43

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶44

Vishakha

Jan Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jan Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases