Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 496 (KAR)

R. B. SWARNAGAURI v. ZILLA PANCHAYAT

2006-06-16

N.K.PATIL

body2006
( 1 ) IN the Instant case, petitioners have assailed the correctness of the order dated 27th November, 2003 passed by second respondent in proceedings bearing no. (sic) 213/98-99 and allow the claim petition filed by petitioners. Further, they have sought for a direction, directing the respondents to pay the compensation to petitioners within a specified period. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioners in the instant writ petition is that, earlier, petitioners had filed Writ Petition No. 5105/2001 seeking a direction, directing the respondents to consider the representation made by petitioners claiming compensation for the untimely unnatural death of Babu Rao, husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 and 8. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by its order dated 30th May, 2002, directing the second respondent herein to consider the claim petition and dispose of the same in accordance with law. After the disposal of the said writ petition, petitioners have given a detailed representation dated 27th September, 2002 in pursuance to the direction issued by this court. In response to the said represents tlon filed by petitioners, the second respondent herein has passed the impugned order dated 27th November, 2003 vide Annexure m, rejecting the claim petition filed by petitioners holding that, they are not entitled to claim, the compensation on law of statutory negligence. Being aggrieved by the impugned order vide Annexure M and for a further direction, as referred above, petitioners herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition. ( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional Government advocate for respondents 2 to 4. The first respondent is served and unrepresented. After careful perusal of the impugned order passed by second respondent, it emerges on the face of the said order that, the first respondent has placed reliance on the report submitted by the police authority and the letter from the Principal Secretary of the department of Revenue, stating that, the incident in which the husband of the first petitioner is alleged to have died an unnatural death does not come under the purview of 'natural calamity'. After appreciation of the relevant material available on record and the report, it can be seen that, some of the villagers have given their statements and the police have recorded a finding that, petitioner and other occupants of the car were drunken while they were driving the car at 10 a. m. It is also recorded that, how the driver of the car did not notice the overflow of kaveri river and that since the driver and other occupants of the car were drunken, they might not have noticed the over flow of the Kaveri river. Further, the authority has stated that, there is no sufficient proof to show that, the husband of the first petitioner has died on account of over flow of Kaveri river. Even if the submission of first petitioner that her husband is not a drunkard, is taken into account, the husband of the first petitioner ought to have observed that, the driver of the car was drunken. After thorough evaluation of the material available on record, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order holding that, petitioners herein are not entitled to compensation, under the relevant circulars or the notifications issued by Government from time to time. After careful perusal of the impugned order and other material available on file, I do not find any error much less material irregularity as such commit' ted by second respondent in passing the impugned order, rejecting the claim petitior of petitioners. Therefore, interference by this court is not justifiable nor petitioners have made out any good grounds to entertain the instant writ petition, The writ petition filed by petitioners is liable to be dismissed. Ac cordingly, it is dismissed. ( 4 ) HOWEVER, the dismissal of the writ petition will not preclude the petitioners frorm redressing their grievances before the competent authority, which are purely questions of fact and they must redress the same before the competent legal forum as it requires appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. In case petitioners avail such remedy, the competent authority is directed to proceed with the matter, without being influenced by the observations made by this court in its order including the order passec by Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu District madikeri. ( 5 ) WITH these observations, the writ petition filed by petitioners stands disposed of. Petition dismissed.