Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Anuja Arun Redij, is the widow of Shri Arun Arvind Redij, who died on 5th February 2019 due to injuries sustained when a wild boar attacked him while he was returning home on his two-wheeler. The incident was reported to the police, and a spot panchanama confirmed the wild boar attack. The petitioner applied for compensation under the Government Resolution dated 11th July 2018, which provides compensation for death caused by attacks of wild animals. However, the Regional Forest Officer, Respondent No.2, rejected her claim by communication dated 18th March 2019, on the ground that a wild boar is not a 'wild animal' covered under the resolution. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the impugned communication and directions to pay compensation. The court examined the Government Resolution and found that it lists various wild animals including 'wild boar' in the schedule. The court held that the resolution is a beneficial scheme and must be interpreted liberally to advance its object. The rejection was based on a misinterpretation. The court quashed the impugned communication and directed the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner as per the resolution within four weeks. The court also awarded costs of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Compensation for Wild Animal Attack - Petitioner sought quashing of communication rejecting compensation claim for husband's death due to wild boar attack - Court held that the Government Resolution dated 11th July 2018 is a beneficial scheme and must be interpreted liberally - The rejection on ground that wild boar is not a 'wild animal' under the scheme was erroneous - Held that wild boar is a wild animal and the petitioner is entitled to compensation (Paras 1-10). B) Forest Law - Wildlife Protection - Government Resolution dated 11th July 2018 - Compensation for Death by Wild Animal - The resolution provides compensation for death caused by attack of 'wild animals' - The Regional Forest Officer rejected claim stating wild boar is not covered - Court held that the list in the resolution is illustrative and includes wild boar - The scheme is beneficial and must be construed in favor of the claimant - Held that the impugned communication is quashed and respondents directed to pay compensation (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, widow of a person killed by a wild boar attack, is entitled to compensation under the Government Resolution dated 11th July 2018, and whether the impugned communication dated 18th March 2019 rejecting her claim is sustainable.
Final Decision
The impugned communication dated 18th March 2019 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to pay compensation to the petitioner as per the Government Resolution dated 11th July 2018 within four weeks. The respondents are also directed to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioner.
Law Points
- Compensation for death caused by wild animal attack
- Government Resolution dated 11th July 2018
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Interpretation of beneficial legislation
- Strict construction of eligibility conditions
