Dismissed

Monowar Hussain v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Feb 2026WP(C)/356/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of the petitioner's representation for ex-gratia payment for his father's death due to lightning in 2010. The Court found no scheme at that time covered lightning deaths; lightning was notified as a State-Specific Disaster only in 2015, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Monowar Hussain Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors. — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010289502025

2026:GAU-AS:1751

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/356/2026

¶6

MONOWAR HUSSAIN

¶7

S/O LATE MOKDEM ALI, VILL. KABAITARY PART I, P.S. JOGIGHOPA, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06

¶10

2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-

¶11

3:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (C) NORTH SALMARA ABHAYAPURI DIST.- BONGAIAGON (ASSAM) PIN

¶12

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Wahab, Advocate

¶13

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Roy, Govt. Advocate

¶14

Ms. G. Hazarika, Standing Counsel

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 09.02.2026

¶19

Heard A. Wahab, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Roy, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the District Administration and Ms. G. Hazarika, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department of the Government of Assam.

¶20

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned communication dated 28.05.2025, whereby the respondents rejected the claim for ex-gratia payment on account of the death of the petitioner’s father on 13.05.2010, due to lightning.

¶21

The pleadings in the instant writ petition, along with the documents enclosed therewith, show that on 13.05.2010 at around 6:00 P.M., the petitioner’s father was struck by lightning while sitting at his home and was taken to Chalantapara Hospital. The petitioner’s father expired thereafter. On the basis of the said incident, an FIR was lodged on 14.05.2010 before the Officer-in-Charge, Jogighopa Police Station. A post-mortem examination was conducted and the post-mortem report also reveals that the death occurred on account of lightning

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

(thundering).

¶24

No material has been placed on record to show that there was any scheme at the time of the death of the petitioner's father which provided ex-gratia payment in cases of death due to lightning. However, by way of a Notification dated 26.06.2015, it was notified that in the 6^th meeting of the State Disaster Management Authority held on 19.05.2015, the Governor of Assam was pleased to declare Erosion, Storm, and Lightning as State-Specific Disasters.

¶25

The petitioner initially sought compensation by submitting an application on 19.07.2010. As the said application was not considered, the petitioner filed a writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No. 2547/2012. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 19.02.2019 disposed of the said writ petition by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit a representation and directing the respondents to dispose of the same within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of such representation. It appears that the petitioner thereupon filed a contempt application which was registered and numbered as Cont.Cas(C) 676/2019. The said contempt application was closed vide an order dated 13.08.2025 in view of the communication dated

¶26

Page No.# 4/4

¶27

28.05.2025 whereby the petitioner's representation was rejected. The petitioner has therefore assailed the communication dated 28.05.2025 by way of the present writ petition.

¶28

This Court has duly perused the said communication dated 28.05.2025. The reason, for which, the petitioner's representation was rejected was on account of the death having occurred in 2010 and death due to lightning was not covered under SDRF at that relevant point of time.

¶29

The petitioner has not placed on record in the instant proceedings any scheme which at the time of the death of his father provided ex-gratia compensation in cases of death due to lightning. Rather, a perusal of Annexure-6 to the writ petition i.e. the Notification dated 26.06.2015 shows that only with effect from the said Notification was lightning brought within the fold of State-Specific Disasters.

¶30

Under such circumstances, this Court does not find the present writ petition to be a fit case for entertaining. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Monowar Hussain v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Monowar Hussain v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khabir Uddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Aloke Kumar Ghoshal Vs Indian Institute of Technology and 4 Ors.

Shri Shri Ram Kumar Singh Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Rabeya Begum Vs the State of Assam

Padma Chakraborty and 40 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Panchanan Das Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.