Rupwati Boro vs State Of Assam And Ors

Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, Forest Department for all the respondents.

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent authorities in the Environment

and Forest Department, Government of Assam to grant the ex-gratia amount for death of the husband of the petitioner caused due to attack by a herd

of wild elephants and also for damage to the hut and the paddy field belonging to the family of the petitioner in terms of the Notification dated

06.03.2017 of the Environment and Forest Department, Government of Assam.

The case of the petitioner is that the family of the petitioner resides in Village - Dakhin Ghilabari under the jurisdiction of Boko Police Station,

District - Kamrup (Rural). In the wee hours of 23.04.2015, at about 3-00 a.m., a herd of wild elephants coming out of the nearby reserved forest,

entered the Village - Dakhin Ghilabari. After so entering, the herd attacked the hut of the petitioner. As a result of the said attack, the husband of the

petitioner viz. Garasan Boro sustained grievous injuries and damage was also caused to the crops and the hut belonging to the family of the petitioner.

The husband of the petitioner, Garasan Boro breathed his last on the way when he was being taken to the hospital for treatment. In respect of the said

incident of death, an unnatural death case being U.D. Case no. 12/2015 was registered in Boko Police Station on 23.04.2015. After enquiry, a report

vide Police Report dated 16.05.2015 (Annexure-1) was also issued by the Officer In-Charge, Boko Police Station. It was reported therein that on

enquiry, it was found that Garasan Boro sustained injuries because of the attack by a wild elephant while he was in his house and he expired while he

was being taken to the hospital for treatment subsequent to the said attack. The Death Certificate issued on 15.05.2015 (Annexure-2) recorded the

date of death of Garasan Boro as 23.04.2015. Late Garasan Boro, at the time of his death, left behind the petitioner, two daughters and a son.

In July, 2015 the petitioner approached the respondent no. 5 with a request to grant ex-gratia amount for the sudden death of her husband in terms

of the policy formulated by the State Government in that regard. The Death Certificate and the Police Report were stated to have been submitted to

the respondent authorities in support of her claim. It was assured that a proposal had already been sent to the higher authorities and the amount would

be disbursed with a short period of time. In November, 2016, the petitioner was asked to submit bank account details and next of kin certificate by the

respondent authorities. Accordingly, she had submitted the same to the respondent authorities. When after waiting for considerable period of time the

ex gratia amount was not disbursed to the petitioner, she submitted a representation on 07.09.2017 (Annexure-3) before the respondent authorities,

sent through registered post with A/D on 08.09.2017, seeking disbursal of the ex-gratia amount in terms of the policy formulated in that behalf by the

State Government. A communication dated 20.09.2017 (Annexure- 4) was received from the Divisional Forest Officer, Guwahati Wlidlife Division

whereby the petitioner was informed that the incident area fell under the jurisdiction of the respondent no. 4 i.e. the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup

West Division. By returning the representation, the petitioner was requested to contact the office of the respondent no. 4. In the above background,

the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking the reliefs, mentioned above.

The State respondents have filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating inter alia that a proposal for payment of an ex-gratia amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to

the victim’s family was forwarded to the higher authority on 14.05.2015 in terms of the Government Notification dated 06.03.2010 and

subsequently, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was sanctioned as ex-gratia grant in favour of the petitioner on 16.01.2018. It is the stand of the

respondents that as the death of the husband of the petitioner, Garasan Boro, due to attack by wild elephants, had occurred on 23.4.2015 the amount

of ex-gratia grant is to be decided on the basis of the then extant policy in force.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the death of the husband of the petitioner occurred on 23.04.2015, there was

unreasonable delay on the part of the respondent authorities in releasing the ex-gratia amount to the petitioner and the policy formulated by the State

Government itself indicates that the relief in the form of ex-gratia grant should be immediate and there should not be any delay in payment of the

same. He has referred to a Notification dated 06.03.2017 published by the respondent department whereby the amount of ex-gratia grant for different

heads had been revised.

I have duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on records.

For the grant of ex-gratia amount to the victims of incidents caused by wild animals, etc. are concerned, the State Government has framed a set of

guidelines indicating different amounts under different heads. The guidelines have been revised from time to time. In transpires that in the year 2010,

the earlier guidelines were revised by a Notification dated 06.03.2010 wherein the amount of ex-gratia grant for loss of a human life was revised to

Rs. 1,00,000/- from earlier Rs. 40,000/-. Similarly, different amounts were fixed under different other heads. By a Notification dated 06.03.2017, the

State Government has revised the earlier guidelines of 2010 with enhancement of the amounts of ex-gratia grant for loss of a human life from Rs.

1,00,000/- to Rs. 4,00,000/-. Similarly, there have been upward revisions in respect of the amounts of ex-gratia grant for other heads like loss of limb,

damages to crops, houses, etc.

Thus, at the time of death of the husband of the petitioner on 23.04.2015, the Notification dated 06.03.2010 was in force. From the communication

dated 14.05.2015, annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition, it is evident that the respondent no. 4 had caused an enquiry in respect of the incident

occurred on 23.04.2015 which resulted into the death of the husband of the petitioner. It is further reflected from the said communication that the

respondent no. 5 had visited the spot and thereafter, a proposal was submitted. An amount of Rs. 5,000/- was stated to be paid immediately to the next

of kin of the deceased person. Thereafter, the State respondents sanctioned the balance amount of ex-gratia grant of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 16.01.2018.

The fact of death of Garasan Boro on 23.04.2015 due to attack by wild elephants has been admitted by the respondents. It has also been admitted by

the respondents that after causing the necessary enquiry, the report was forwarded to the higher authorities for sanction of the ex-gratia amount on

14.05.2015. In the aforesaid fact situation, the question about the entitlement of the petitioner is to be considered.

From the facts emerged in respect of the case in hand, it is evident that by the time the final disbursement of Rs. 1,00,000/- was made to the

petitioner, the State Government had revised the guidelines relating to amounts for ex-gratia grant for loss of a human life, loss of limb, loss of

livestock, damage to crops, houses, etc. caused by wild animals by the Notification dated 06.03.2017 whereby in so far as the amount of ex-gratia

grant for the death of a human is concerned the same had been enhanced to Rs. 4,00,000/- per deceased person.

Reliance has been placed in the decision of this Court in Dalimi Rongpi vs. State of Assam and others reported in 2014 (3) NEJ (Gau) 225,

wherein, in a similar situation, a direction was made to pay the ex-gratia amount in terms of the notification which was in force at the time of final

disbursement of the ex-gratia amount. In Dalimi Rongpi (supra), the husband of the petitioner therein died on 27.04.2007 and for about 7 years, nothing

was paid to the petitioner therein. At the time of death of the deceased therein, the amount of ex-gratia grant as per the then extant Government

notification was Rs. 40,000/- The said amount of ex-gratia grant stood enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- by a subsequent Notification dated 06.03.2010.

When the writ petition, W.P.(C) no. 4256/2007, came up for consideration on 10.06.2014, this Court directed the State respondents to pay the ex-

gratia amount in terms of the Notification dated 06.03.2010. It was also observed that the victims of wild animals must be compensated promptly

without delay and because of inaction on the part of the State respondents, the victim’s family was constrained to move the Court to get their

legitimate dues. Since the disbursal was not made in due time, the Court held that the respondent should pay the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in terms of

the Notification dated 06.03.2010.

In the case in hand also, the death of the deceased occurred on 23.04.2015 and when after purportedly making payment of a meager amount of

Rs. 5,000/- the balance amount was not disbursed for a considerable period of time, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court in the

year 2017. It was only after institution of this writ petition, the State respondents had sanctioned the balance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 16.01.2018.

The balance amount was finally paid on 17.03.2018 by way of a demand draft. Thus, there was inordinate and inexplicable delay on the part of the

State respondents in sanctioning and disbursal of the ex-gratia amount in connection with the death of the husband of the petitioner the necessary

enquiry for which was completed as far back as on 14.05.2015. The Notification dated 06.03.2017 mentions that the revised rates had come into force

w.e.f. 24.05.2016. It is noticed that by the Notification dated 06.03.2010, the State Government enhanced the ex-gratia amount for loss of a human life

from earlier Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- and by the subsequent Notification dated 06.03.2017, the said amount was enhanced from Rs. 1,00,000/- to

Rs. 4,00,000/- w.e.f. 24.05.2016. From such periodical enhancements in the ex- gratia amounts it is clearly discernible that the State Government had

itself felt that due to various factors including the changes in the cost of living index, the rates of inflations, etc., there was need for upward revision

periodically in the ex-gratia amounts after taking into account of the relevant factors. What was reasonable amount of ex-gratia at a particular point of

time might not be reasonable at a subsequent point of time. The State Government as a policy decision has formulated the guidelines providing for ex-

gratia amount for different hazards faced by the victims of attacks by wild animals and it cannot be denied that disbursal of such ex-gratia grant should

be prompt to enable the victims and/or the victims’ families to overcome the sudden loss and to deal with the untoward situation which have

befallen on them suddenly due to attacks by wild animals which are always unanticipated. In the event the disbursal of the ex-gratia amount is not

made immediately and there is delay in disbursal of the same then it is incumbent on the part of the State respondents to offset the situation for the

victims and/or the victims’ families by disbursal of the amount of ex-gratia grant prevailing on the date of such disbursal.

In the above fact situation obtaining in the case and in the light of the above discussion, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to get the ex-

gratia amount in terms of the Notification dated 06.03.2017. It is, therefore, directed that the respondents shall take necessary action to ensure the

disbursal of the balance amount of ex-gratia grant due to petitioner on account of death of her husband, upon her due identification, in terms of the

Notification dated 06.03.2017 within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the amount is not paid

within the said period, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of death of the deceased i.e. 23.04.2015 till the date of

disbursal.

As the learned counsel for the petitioner has not urged with regard to the damages relating to crops and the hut in view of the stand of the

respondents about non-submission of any report of assessment about the same, no necessity has arisen for adjudication on those aspects.

The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.