Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK AFR W.P(C) NO. 21267 OF 2016 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. --------------- Bibhuti Charan Mohanty ..… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and Ors. ….. Opp. Parties For petitioner : M/s. R. Swain, B. Nayak, P.K. Mohanty and D. Sahu, Advocates For opp. parties : Mr. D. Mohanty Addl. Government Advocate [O.Ps.1 to 3 & 5] Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate along with M/s. P.K. Pasayat, D.N. Mohapatra, J. Mohanty, P.K. Nayak, S.N. Dash and P. Mohanty, Advocates [O.P.4] P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R.SARANGI AND THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Date of Hearing: 06.12.2023:: Date of Judgment: 13.12.2023 // 2 // DR. B.R. SARANGI, ACJ. The petitioner, an advocate by profession, has filed this writ petition by way of public interest litigation, seeking direction to the opposite parties to control and check the roaming dogs within the human inhabitants and also take necessary, appropriate or adequate action for the protection of the human lives and to pay compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs to the family of the deceased child. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that one male child, namely, Satyabrata Rout, son of Hrudananda Rout at Jagannath Colony under Kumbharpada Police Station, Puri, while playing by the side of his house adjacent to the public road, on 01.12.2016, one after another four roving dogs furiously attacked him in the hunting manner. Hearing his cry, his mother and nearby neighbours came to the spot immediately, but the attack of the street dogs was so furious that within 2 to 3 minutes the child breathed his last. Neither his mother nor the other inmates could rescue the child from the clutches of the hunting dogs. The said child (Satyabrata Rout) was the only son of his // 3 // parents and his death caused havoc in the lives of the parents so also the relatives. 2.1. The said incident was published on 01.12.2016 in Odia daily newspapers, namely, “The Samaj” and “The Amrutadunia” and others. The petitioner also came to know the fact from the reporter/ editor concerned of the aforesaid newspapers. Therefore, he approached this Court by filing this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to control and check the roaming dogs within the human inhabitants and also take necessary, appropriate or adequate action for the protection of the human lives and to pay compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs to the family of the deceased child. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. R. Swain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that due to frequent roaming and moving of dogs and other animals in the city serious incidents and road accidents are being caused, for which many people and children are losing their lives. Therefore, the roaming of dogs and other animals // 4 // in the city should be checked. It is further contended that the frightful incident has happened due to negligence on the part of the State Administration. It is the duty of the State to save and protect the lives of the people as per Article 21 of the Constitution. It is further contended that the father of the deceased child has lost his only son due to attack of the street dogs. Therefore, for the mental agony and sufferings incurred, he should be granted compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs. But, the Municipal Authorities have washed their hands by giving a lump sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. To substantiate his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Shobha Ram Rajwa Ram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR Online 2018 CHH 1051 and Yusub v. State of Karnatak, AIR Online 2022 KAR 399. 4. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.4-Puri Municipal Corporation, referring to the counter affidavit, contended that // 5 // after reported occurrence of the tragic incident, opposite party no.4-Puri Municipa lity unde rtook suitable measure s ABC (Animal Birth Control) programme. A total of 1620 (sixteen hundred twenty) numbers of stray dogs have been brought under sterilization operation and the said process is continuing. So far as compensation to the family of the deceased child is concerned, he contended that there is no provision under the Odisha Municipal Act, 1950 and/or any other statute for payment of any compensation in case of such unfortunate incident. Therefore, no liability arises for Puri Municipality in case of any death that may have occurred because of attack by stray dogs. But however, considering the gravity of the matter and dealing with the instant case sympathetically as well as giving due regard to the order of this Court, the Executive Officer, Puri Municipality contacted over telephone with the father of the deceased, who is now residing in Athagarh, Cuttack to submit the details of his bank account to transfer the compensation as admissible. In // 6 // order to alleviate the grievance of Hrudananda Rout, the parents of ill-fated child died due to stray dog bites in the year 2016, the Collector and District Magistrate, Puri was appraised of the matter, vide office letter no.7091 dated 24.01.2023, to grant financial assistance as admissible. Thereafter, the Collector and District Magistrate, Puri sanctioned an amount of Rs.30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand) out of Chief Minister Relief Fund, vide order no.394/Emer dated 22.02.2023, and Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) from Red Cross Fund, vide order no.48/R.C. dated 22.02.2023, in favour of Hrudananda Rout, S/o- Nath Rout, At- Jagannath Colony with a direction to the Tahasildar, Puri to intimate the facts to the father of the deceased. Thus, in total Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) has been paid to the father of the deceased child. It is also contended that after the said tragic incident, Puri Municipality has undertaken suitable steps, as a result of which no such // 7 // untoward incident has taken place within its jurisdiction. To substantiate his contentions, he has relied upon Sarla Verma (Smt.) And Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121. 5. Mr. D. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties relied upon the arguments advanced by Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for opposite party no.4-Puri Municipal Corporation and, as such, the State has not filed any counter affidavit in this writ petition. 6. This Court heard Mr. R. Swain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. D. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties and Mr. P. K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.4-Puri Municipality in hybrid mode. The pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of // 8 // learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is being
Decision
disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 7. There is no dispute in the instant case that the father of the deceased child has lost his only child due to attack by street dogs and, as such, the parents could not be able to find out time to save his life by carrying him to the hospital, as death occurred instantly within 2 to 3 minutes of the attack by street dogs. To compensate the mental agony and sufferings of the parents of the deceased child, the Municipal Authority has granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. 8. In Hamlet, IV, v, in the words of Shakespeare when sorrows come, they come not single species, but in battalions. Due to such frightful event, the parents lost their only child because of victimization of the street dogs. As such nobody saved the life of Satyabrata, who breathed his life within 2 or 3 minutes of the bites of the dogs. // 9 // In “The Borderers”, William Butler Yeats told that “suffering is permanent, obscure, and dark, and shares the nature of infinity” 9. As such, suffering is permanent, obscure, and dark, and shares the nature of infinity. The death of the only child has caused mental agony to the parents and from that they have not well recouped and it will continue throughout their lives. Apart from the same, the mother of the child, who was the witness to the situation for a while, imprinted the incident in her brain and has been shading tears from her eyes which have not dried till date. Feelings of the parents for losing their only child because of attack by the street dogs cannot be measured in terms of money. The Municipal Administration, by handing over Rs.50,000/- to the parents of the deceased child, have washed their hands and are sitting tight without taking any remedial measure, which is very painful. Payment of compensation for the incident occurred on 01.12.2016 is not a matter of showing sympathy or obligation or compassion. Rather, it is to be seen whether the // 10 // parents, who have lost their only child, are adequately compensated for the irreparable loss or damages caused to them due to negligence and callous attitude of the Municipal Administration. 10. For just and proper adjudication of the case, it is worthwhile to note that Article 21 mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Personal liberty has an important role to play in the life of every citizen. Life or personal liberty includes a right to live with human dignity. Life and personal liberty are inalienable to human existence, and existed even before the advent of the Constitution. Hence, the Constitution cannot be said to be the sole repository of these natural law rights. Enjoyment of a quality life by the people is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The protection of the Article extends to all ‘person’, not merely citizens, including even persons under imprisonment (as regards restrictions imposed in jail). // 11 // 10.1. Apart from the above, it is also note worthy to refer to the relevant provisions of the Odisha Municipal Act, 1950, which are extracted hereunder:- “Sec.287-Prohibition against keeping animal so as to be a nuisance or dangerous- No person shall keep any animal on his premises so as to be a nuisance or so as to be dangerous. Sec.288-Power to destroy stray pigs or dogs-(1) The council may, and, if so directed by the District Magistrate, shall give public notice that unlicensed pigs or dogs straying within specified limits will be destroyed. (2) When such notice has been give, the Executive Officer may cause to be destroyed in any manner not inconsistent with the terms of the notice any unlicensed pig or dog, as the case may be, found straying within such limits.” 11. May it be noted that basically Article 21 States the Protection of Lives and personal liberty. That means, Article 21 mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. 12. In State of Maharashtra V. Chandrabhan, AIR 1983 SC 803, the apex Court held that Right to Life, enshrined in Article 21 means something more than survival or animal existence. // 12 // The same view has also been taken in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180, D.T.C. v. Mazdoor Congress Union D.T.C., AIR 1991 SC 101, Re Noise Pollution (V), (2005) 5 SCC 733 and Re Noise Pollution (VI), (2005) 8 SCC 794. 13. In Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory Delhi, Administrator, AIR 1981 SC 746 : (1981) 1 SCC 608, the apex Court held that the right to life would include the right to live with human dignity. 14. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597: 1978 1 SCC 248, the Apex Court held that the right to life would include all those aspects of life which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth living. 15. In Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549 : AIR 1996 SC 1051, the apex Court held that the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution embraces within its sweep not only physical existence but the quality of life. Right to live guaranteed in any civilised society implies the right to // 13 // food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. 16. In Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra