N.R. NANJAPPA S/O RAMAIAH Vs. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS CHIKAMAGALUR DIVISION, PRINCIPLEOF CHIEF CONSERVATOROF FORESTS (WILD LIFE) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA@RESPO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the father of deceased Suresh, Suresh died of snakebite while he was working in the land. Petitioner contends that his son was the bread winner in the family and the Petitioner aim his wife completely depended on him for their livelihood. The Petitioner made a representation addressed to the first Respondent Deputy Conservator of Forests, Chikamagalur Division, Chikmagalur on 8.7.2008 seeking compensation for the untimely and unnatural death of his only son. He was informed by letter dated 17.7.2008, that no provision had been made for grant of compensation in such cases as the death did not occur in the forest area belonging to the State Government. Aggrieved by the said communication, the Petitioner sought for information under the Right to Information Act by making an application on 15.12.2008 seeking particulars regarding payment, of compensation in similar cases.

(2.) ACCORDING to the Petitioner, he had obtained information regarding payment of compensation, for the kith and kin who had either died or had been injured, by wild animals within and outside the forest area. According to the Petitioner, Government has furnished the information that two persons were given compensation for the death of their relatives although the incident bad occurred outside the forest area on account of attack by wild animals. Intact, the Petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion, challenging the dated 17.7.2008 issued by the Respondent refusing to grant compensation to the Petitioner. this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 2.4.20O9 directing the first Respondent to consider the mailer afresh.

(3.) I have carefully considered' the entire material on record. Though it is an unfortunate case where the Petitioner has lost his son due to snakebite, unless the Petitioner shows any right in him under the provisions of any law or any notification issued by the Sate Government providing for payment of compensation a writ of mandamus cannot be issued against the Respondents to pay the compensation. The Petitioner died due to sanakebite while he was working in his land. According to the Respondents there is no provision made by the Forest Department to pay compensation in such cases. The impugned endorsement issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forests refers provisions made for payment of compensation in case of any accident occurring in the forest area due to such untoward incident. The Petitioner is not particular about payment of compensation by the Forest Department. The State Government is made a party. Petitioner has contended that in similar cased of unnatural death, the State Government has paid compensation to mitigate the dire that consequences that have be fallen on the family which lost the breed winner. It was the duty of the State Government to examine the same. The Petitioner has given certain instances in the petition, where two persons were given compensation for the death of their kith and kin which occurred outside the forest area. Therefore, the State Government ought to have examined the matter in its proper perspective particularly keeping in mind similar instances wherein compensation had been paid by the State Government.