Kerala High Court
Benny Jacob vs State Of Kerala on 6 February, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 16924 OF 2015 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 16924 OF 2015
PETITIONER/S:
BENNY JACOB
AGED 39 YEARS
VENGAPINDIL HOUSE, KALLELIMEDU, KUTTAMPUZHA PO,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
BY ADV SRI.VIJAI MATHEWS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY FOREST DEPARTMENT
SECRETARIAT, THRIUVANANTHAPURAM
2 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, MALAYATTOOR DIVISION,
KOANADU PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683544
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. T. P. SAJAN SPL GP FOREST
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 16924 OF 2015 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C.) No. 16924 of 2015
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2024
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
i. "Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order, or direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider the
application submitted by the petitioner for compensation as per
Rule 4 (a) of the Kerala Rules for payment of compensation to
Victims of Attack by Wild Animals, on merit without taking delay
into consideration, and to allow compensation to the petitioner,
within a time limit to be specified by this honourable Court.
ii. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order, or direction quashing Exhibit P1.
iii. Grant such other relief that may pray for at the time of
hearing." [sic]
2. The petitioner is a resident of Kuttampuzha Grama
Panchayat. He is aggrieved by the rejection of the application
submitted by him for granting compensation to the victims of
attack by wild animals. On 01.02.2012, it is submitted that the
petitioner was bitten by a poisonous snake while he was
collecting drinking water from the forest. After the incident, the
petitioner was admitted in the hospital. It is submitted that he
had to undergo prolonged Allopathic and Ayurvedic treatment
for snake bite, for which he spent about Rs.1,00,000/- is the
submission. Since the petitioner is residing near the reserve
forest and was bitten by snake from the forest, according to the
petitioner, he is entitled to get compensation as per the Kerala
Rules for Payment of Compensation to Victims of Attack by Wild
Animals, 1980 (for short 'Rules, 1980'). The application for
compensation is to be submitted before the Divisional Forest
Officer within a period of three months. Since the petitioner
was undergoing treatment and his prolonged physical
incapacity resulted from the snake bite, the petitioner could
not submit an application for compensation as per the Rules
within a period of three months of the snake bite, is the
submission. However, the petitioner submitted an application
with all relevant documents before the 2 nd respondent
-Divisional Forest Officer. According to the petitioner, even
though there was delay in submitting the application, that delay
was not due to the wilful latches or negligence on the part of
the petitioner. But the Divisional Forest Officer rejected his
application without going to the merit by simply stating that it is
barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is
filed.
3. Ext.P1 is the impugned order. The petitioner also
produced Exts. P2 and P3, which are the certificates issued by the
President and Chairperson of Kuttumpuzha Grama Panchayat
certifying that the petitioner was bitten by snake, while he was
collecting water from the forest and he is eligible for
compensation. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 impugned order, this writ
petition is filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Special Government Pleader (Forest).
5. This Court perused Ext.P1 order. Ext.P1 is an order
rejecting the application of the petitioner stating that it is filed
after the period prescribed in the Rules, 1980. It is true that as
per Rule 4 of the Rules, 1980 the party desirous of applying for
compensation shall make his/her certification in the prescribed
form within a period of three months from the date of
occurrence of the incident. It is also an admitted fact that the
petition is filed after three months. But, the petitioner has got a
reason for the delay in filing the application. The same is not
considered in the impugned order. As per the Rule, the delay
condonation is not prohibited specifically. In such
circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the
petitioner can be allowed to file a delay condonation petition to
condone the delay in filing the petition and there can be a
direction to decide the same first and thereafter consider the
application of the petitioner in accordance with law .
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions :
1) Ext.P1 is set aside.
2) The petitioner is free to submit an application to condone
the delay in filing the petition as per the rule 4 of the
Rules, 1980 within one month from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this judgment.
3) Once such an application is received, the 2 nd respondent
will consider the delay condonation petition and pass
appropriate orders in it, as expeditiously as possible, at
any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of the
delay condonation petition.
4) Based on the decision in the delay condonation petition,
the 2nd respondent will consider the application for
compensation submitted by the petitioner in accordance
with law.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16924/2015
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1:TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
DATED 30.102014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2;L TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED
BY THE PRESIDENT OF KUTTAMPUZHA GRAMA
PANCHAYATH DATED 4.9.2014
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE CHAIRPERSON KUTTAMPUZHA GRAMA
PANCHAYAYH DATED 4.9.2014
