MAMTAZ BEGUM Vs. CHAIRMAN (MAYOR)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this application seeking for following reliefs:

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that late Abdul Lyakuddin, husband of the petitioner, became a victim of attack of a stray bull on 30.01.1998 at about 7.55 a.m. at Mangalabg Chhak, while he was going to purchase some sweets from a nearby shop. He was immediately shifted to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, where he, ultimately, succumbed to the injuries on 04.02.1998 and, consequently, an U.D. Case was registered bearing No.85 of 1998 at Mangalabag Police Station. According to the petitioner, the above incident was nothing but an outcome of negligence on the part of the opposite party Corporation and its authorities in removing the stray bulls and cows from the public street. By that, they have only failed to discharge their statutory duties but also neglected to comply with the directions given in the decisions of this Court in Madhabananda Pal v. The Executive Officer and others, 78 (1994) C.L.T. 332 and Govinda Ch. Patra v. Chairman (Mayor), Cuttack Municipal Corporation and others, 1995 (II) OLR 574. Therefore, by means of this writ petition, besides claiming compensation, the petitioner seeks for directions to the opposite parties to take immediate steps in compliance of the directions contained in the aforementioned judgments of this Court.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urged before this Court that every citizen has a right to life within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes right to life with human dignity and, as such, the opposite parties-Municipal Corporation owe a responsibility to ensure public health and safety of its citizens. Furthermore, even though Section 287 of the Orissa Municipal Act, in order to prevent nuisance or danger, requires the opposite parties-Municipal Corporation to impose restrictions against keeping animal within the municipal area, Section 253 of the Act requires the opposite parties-Municipal Corporation to maintain road safety, and Section 88 of the Act confers emergency powers upon the Executive Officer of the opposite parties-Municipal Corporation for immediate execution or doing/taking action, which is, in his opinion, necessary for the service of safety of the public and, more particularly, when there is specific direction from this Court in Madhabananda Pal (supra) and Govinda Ch. Patra (supra) to ensure public health and safety, the same having been complied with, consequence thereof the petitioner's husband has lost his life on the attack of a stray bull. Therefore, the petitioner should be awarded compensation for such negligence on the part of the opposite parties-Municipal Corporation. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance, apart from the aforementioned judgments, upon Rajasthan Pradesh V.S. Sardarshahar and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors, 2010 (4) Supreme 449 ,Pramila Khata and others v. CESU of Orissa, 2013 (Supp.-I) OLR 405 , Biswanath Senapati v. Chief Executive Officer, Central Electricity Supply Utility, Bhubaneswar, 2013 (Supp.-I) OLR 427 , Udaya Gagarai v. Executive Engineer, Electrical Division and another, 2014 (Supp.-I) OLR 51 , T. Bimala v. Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack and others, 2015 (I) OLR 637 and Haramani Das and another v. C.E.S.U. of Orissa, 2015 (Supp.-I) OLR 1032.