Dismissed

The Commissioner v. Miss. Poorna N.K.

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2022WP/76943/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an award by the Permanent Lok Adalath. The Court held that the Municipal Corporation could be liable for compensation for a child injured by stray dogs and affirmed the awarded sum without interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the award of Rs. 5,25,000 by the Permanent Lok Adalath was affirmed.

The Commissioner Vs Miss. Poorna N.K. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

No. 76943 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 76943 OF 2013 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF THE BELGAUM, OFFICE OF THE CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BELGAUM CITY, BELGAUM

¶7

… PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

MISS. POORNA N.K. AGE: 5-½ YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, MINOR, R/BY HER FATHER, A.K. NAGARAJAPPA, WORKING AS A

¶11

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, BELGAUM, R/AT: QUARTERS.NO.1, OF THE JUDICIAL OFFICERS COLONY AT BEGLAUM.

¶12

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, THE GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, DEPT. OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR, DEPT. OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, VISHWESHWARAYYA TOWER, 9^TH CROSS, BANGALORE

¶14

… RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. B S KAMATE FOR R1, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. V. S. KULKARNI, AGA FOR R2 & R3)

¶16

¶17

No. 76943 of 2013

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27/09/2012 IN PLA PETITON NO.111/2011 PASSED BY HON'BLE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT, BELGAUM i.e. ANNEXURE-C AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

1. The petitioner is the Corporation of the City of

¶22

Belagavi. It is challenging an award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalath, by which the compensation of Rs.5,25,000/- has been ordered to be paid to Miss Poorna, a five and half year old student, who suffered a severe attack by stray dogs and suffered as many as 30 multiple lacerations.

¶23

2. The Permanent Lok Adalath has taken the view

¶24

that, it was the obligation of the Corporation to destroy stray dogs and pigs and also to maintain cleanliness of the streets by removing rubbish and since this was not done, the attack on the child had occurred by the stray dog and

¶25

¶26

No. 76943 of 2013

¶27

therefore the Municipal Corporation was liable for

¶28

compensation.

¶29

Learned counsel for the Corporation contended that the Lok Adalath would posses no jurisdiction since the maintenance of cleanliness or destruction of stray dogs and pigs cannot be considered as a public utility services as defined under Section 22-A of the LAC Act. He however fairly conceded that the amount awarded by the Lok Adalath in a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- had been deposited and the first respondent had also withdrawn the same in execution proceedings.

¶30

Shri B.S. Kamate, learned counsel appearing for

¶31

the first respondent submits that the Permanent Lok Adalath did possess the jurisdiction to entertain any dispute relating to a public utility services and since under the Provisions of the KMC Act, it was the statutory duty cast on the Corporation to maintain cleanliness and also to ensure destruction of dogs and pigs, the Municipal

¶32

¶33

No. 76943 of 2013

¶34

Corporation was vicariously liable for any damage that occurred as a result of an attack by stray dogs.

¶35

It this case, it may not be relevant to decide whether the Permanent Lok Adalath possesses the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of the kind raised in this writ petition, because this Court in W.P. No.113052/2019, which was a litigation filed in respect of an attack on a young boy by street dogs, this Court has taken the view that it is not only a public duty but also a statutory duty vested with the Municipal Authorities to safeguard the citizens residing in an area form attack by stray dogs and the authorities would be responsible for the consequences arising out of such attacks and therefore they are required to follow the directions mentioned therein.

¶36

In the light of the said decision, it is obvious

¶37

that even if it is held that the Permanent Lok Adalath had no jurisdiction, the attack on the first respondent by the

¶38

¶39

No. 76943 of 2013

¶40

stray dog would still make the Corporation liable for compensation.

¶41

The Permanent Lok Adalath has awarded a sum of Rs.5,25,000/towards compensation and the determination of the said compensation is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶42

The writ petition is therefore dismissed. The question of law as to whether the Municipal functions would come within the meaning of Section 22-A i.e., the Public Utility Services is kept open to be decided in an appropriate case.

¶43

sd JUDGE

¶44

Vnp*

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76

The Commissioner v. Miss. Poorna N.K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner v. Miss. Poorna N.K.

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

Babu Ankalagi S/O Laxman Vs Dundappa Ankalagi S/O Laxman

Smt. Savita W/O. Late Laxman Madivalar Alias Agasar Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Gajanan Vs the State Transport Employees

Ningappa S/O. Basappa Badiger Vs the Executive Engineer (Civil )

Sri. Maheshwar S/O Veerasangayya Hiremath Vs Sri. Chidananda S/O Durugundayya Hiremath

Sri. Chidanandappa S/O Urukundappa Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer