JUDGMENT : 1. Set of documents three in number running to four pages produced by learned Standing Counsel is taken on record. 2. Ms. Prachi Shukla, holding brief of Sri Shashi Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sharad Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for respondents no.1 to 3. 3. This is a petition filed by the father of the deceased being Neetu seeking following reliefs:- "a. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to pay Rs.4 lakhs to the petitioner immediately which has been sanctioned by the respondent no.3 on 06.09.2018 (Annexure No.1); b. to issue a writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case; c. to award cost of the petition to the petitioner." 4. Factual matrix as worded in the present writ petition are that the daughter of the petitioner herein namely, Neetu, aged about 18 years, expired due to snake bite on 21.08.2018 at about 1:00 P.M. (Noon). As per the records it reveals that the Tehsildar, Etah conducted an enquiry and tendered his enquiry report on 21.08.2018, wherein the death of the daughter of the petitioner due to snake bite was confirmed. Records further reveal that on 06.09.2018 the respondent no.3, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Etah issued an office order according its approval for grant of Rs.4,00,000/-as compensation. On 15.04.2019 a communication was issued by the respondent no.3 mentioning therein that the petitioner being the father of the deceased was entitled to be paid Rs.4,00,000/-as compensation on account of the death of his daughter due to snake bite. 5. As the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-which was to be paid as a compensation on account of death of the daughter of the petitioner was not extended so proceedings purported to be under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was put to motion by the petitioner and when the same was also not acceded to then an appeal was also preferred by the petitioner and the respondent no.2 by virtue of his letter dated 04.04.2019 directed for the disposal of the application purported to be under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 6. 6. Eventually, Kanoongo (Finance) supplied the information to the wife of the petitioner being the mother of the deceased that the payment of an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was deferred and was made subject to receipt of the viscera report. 7. This Court finds that there is a report at page 20 (Annexure-4) of the paper book dated 13.01.2019, wherein Senior Sub Inspector, Police Station Mirhachi, District Etah has issued a communication addressed to Senior Senior Superintendent of Police, District Etah mentioning therein that the samples so drawn from the deceased were sent for its testing to Forensic Scientific Laboratory, Agra, however, the same could not be processed by the Forensic Scientific Laboratory, Agra on the pretext that the sample can not be tested at Agra and the only Forensic Scientific Laboratory is at Mumbai can do the necessary test. Subsequently, on 02.02.2020 the viscera report was sent to Forensic Scientific Laboratory, Maharashtra at Mumbai through one of the constable so posted therein, a copy thereof has been filed as Annexure-5 to the paper book. Forensic Scientific Laboratory, Maharashtra at Mumbai has shown its inability to conduct testing of the viscera as according to it has no jurisdiction to conduct test of the samples which are outside the territorial jurisdiction of Maharashtra. 8. As the petitioner herein has not been paid the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-which had already been sanctioned by the respondents, thus he has filed the present writ petition. On 06.04.2022 this Court proceeded to pass the following order:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sharad Chandra Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this writ petition for following reliefs:- "a. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to pay Rs.4 lakhs to the petitioner immediately which has been sanctioned by the respondent no.3 on 06.09.2018 (Annexure No.1); b. to issue a writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case; c. to award cost of the petition to the petitioner." While drawing attention towards annexure-3 to this petition, it is submitted that the claim of the petitioner is being kept pending for last several years on the ground that viscera report has not been received. Attention was also drawn to annexure-6 to the petition to point out that viscera report was returned by FSL Mumbai on the ground that viscera from outside the State are not being tested there and the same has been sent back to the concerned police station. It is submitted that the same is still pending. This Court fails to understand the ground for keeping the matter pending indefinitely. In case even if the sample has been returned by FSL Mumbai on the ground that outside samples are not tested in Mumbai lab, this cannot be a ground for keeping the claim pending for indefinite period. The State authority should have made arrangement to get the viscera report from other FSL where such samples within the State of U.P. or outside the State of U.P. are tested. Learned Standing Counsel is directed to seek instructions from the respondent no.2 under his signature within a period of three weeks. The respondent no.2 is at liberty to do the needful in the meantime. Put up this case on 21.4.2022 as fresh." 9. Today, when the matter was taken up, Sri Sharad Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel has made a submission at bar that he has complete instructions in the matter and he does not propose to file any counter affidavit and the writ petition be disposed of at the admission stage without calling for the response. 10. The Central Government in exercise of power as conferred therein has enacted an act by the nomenclature of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 in order to provide for the effective management of disasters and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 11. In order to give ends to the aims and the objects of creation of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, on 27.06.2016 respondent no.1 issued a Notification bearing No.303/1-11-2016-4(G)/16 providing for the modalities with respect to funds for expenditure to be incurred from State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF). 11. In order to give ends to the aims and the objects of creation of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, on 27.06.2016 respondent no.1 issued a Notification bearing No.303/1-11-2016-4(G)/16 providing for the modalities with respect to funds for expenditure to be incurred from State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF). The Notification dated 27.06.2016 issued by the respondent no.1 is being quoted hereinunder:- ^^mŸkj izns'k 'kklu jktLo vuqHkkx&11 la[;k&303@1&11&2016&4¼th½@16 y[kuÅ % fnuakd % 27 twUk] 2016 vf/klwpuk Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk jkT; vkink ekspd fuf/k vkSj jk"Vªh; vkink ekspd fuf/k ¼2015&20½ ls O;; ds lEca/k esa ekud ,oa njksa dks fu/kkZfjr djrs gq;s i= la[;k&32&7@2014&,uŒMhŒ,eŒ&1 fnukad 08-04-2015 ds fcanq la[;k&13 es fuEu O;oLFkk nh x;h gS%& 13 State specific disaster within the local context in the State, which are not included in the notified list of disaster eligible for assistance from SDRF/NDRF, can be met from SDRF within the limit of 10% of the annual funds allocation of the SDRF. Expenditure is to be incurred from SDRF only (and not from NDRF), as assessed by the State Executive Committee (SEC). The norm for various items will be the same as application to other notified natural disaster, as listed above, or In these cases, the scale of relief assistance against each item for 'local disaster' should not exceed the norms of SDRF. The Flexibility is to be applicable only after the State has formally listed the disaster for inclusion and notified transparent norms and guidelines with a clear procedure for identification of the beneficiaries for disaster relief for such local disaster; with the approval of SEC. The Flexibility is to be applicable only after the State has formally listed the disaster for inclusion and notified transparent norms and guidelines with a clear procedure for identification of the beneficiaries for disaster relief for such local disaster; with the approval of SEC. 2- jkT; es csekSle Hkkjh ckfj'k] vk/kh@rwQku] vkdk'kh; fctyh ,oa yw&izdksi ls izR;sd o"kZ cM+h la[;k es tu&/ku dh gkfu gksrh gSA vr% Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk nh x;h mDr O;oLFkk ds n`f"Vxr 'kklukns'k la[;k&249@1&11&2015&4¼th½@2015] fnuakd 15-04-2015 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr fnukad 16-04-2015½ dks fujLr djrs gq;s Jh jkT;iky egksn; csekSle Hkkjh ckfj'k] vka/kh@rwQku] vkdk'kh; fctyh ,oa yw&izdksi dks jkT; vkink ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus dh lg"kZ Lohd`fr iznku djrs gSA 3- mDRk jkT; vkink ls izHkkfor O;fDr;ks@ifjokjks dks Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk jkT; vkink ekspd fuf/k ds fy, fu/kkZfjr ekud ,oa njksa ds vuqlkj jkgr iznku dh tk;sxhA 4- mDr jkT; vkinkvksa ds lEca/k es gksus okyk O;; vuqnku la[;k 51 ds varZxr ys[kk'kh”kZd ^^2245&izkd`frd foifŸk ds dkj.k jkgr 05 LVsV fMtkLVj fjLaikl Q.M 800 vU; O;;&06&LVsV fMtkLVj fjLikal Q.M ls O;;&09 jkT; ljdkj }kjk ?kksf"kr vU; vkinkvksa gsrq fMtkLVj fjLikal Q.M ls O;;&42 vU; O;;^^ ls ogu fd;k tk;sxkA 5- izns'k ljdkj }kjk fy;s x;s mijksDr fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr dh tk;A gŒ ¼lqjs'k pUnzk½ izeq[k lfpoA^^ 12. Subsequently, on 02.08.2018, the respondent no.1 issued another Notification which reads as under:- 11- ^^mŸkj izns'k 'kklu jktLo vuqHkkx&11 la[;k&;wŒvksŒ30@1&11&2018&4¼th@2015 y[kuÅ % fnukad %% 02 vxLr] 2018 vf/klwpuk Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk jkT; vkink ekspd fuf/k vkSj jk”Vªh; vkink ekspd fuf/k ¼2015&20½ ls O;; ds laca/k es ekud ,oa njksa dks fu/kkfjZr djrs g, i= la[;k 32&7@2014&,uMh,e&izFke] fnukad 08-04-2015 ds fcUnq la[;k&13 esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh x;h gS %& Item Norms of Assistance State specific disaster within the local context in the State, which are not included in the notified list of disaster eligible for assistance from SDRF/NDRF, can be met from SDRF within the limit of 10% of the annual funds allocation of the SDRF. Expenditure is to be incurred from SDRF only (and not from NDRF), as assessed by the State Executive Committee (SEC). The norm for various items will be the same as application to other notified natural disaster, as listed above, or In these cases, the scale of relief assistance against each item for 'local disaster' should not exceed the norms of SDRF. The norm for various items will be the same as application to other notified natural disaster, as listed above, or In these cases, the scale of relief assistance against each item for 'local disaster' should not exceed the norms of SDRF. The Flexibility is to be applicable only after the State has formally listed the disaster for inclusion and notified transparent norms and guidclines with a clear procdure for identification of the beneficiaries for disaster relief for such local disaster; with the approval of SEC. 2- Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk nh x;h mDr O;oLFkk ds Øe es vf/klwpuk la[;k&303@1&11&2016&4¼th½@2015] fnukad 27-06-2016 }kjk csekSle Hkkjh o"kkZ] vkdk'kh; fo|qr] vka/kh rwQku ,oa yw&izdksi dks jkT; vkink ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gSA 3- 'kklu dh mi;qZDr vf/klwpuk fnukad 27-06-2016 }kjk ?kksf"kr vkinkvksa&csekSle Hkkjh o"kkZ] vkdk'kh; fo|qr] vak/kh rwQku ,oa yw&izdksi ds lkFk gh izns'k esa uko nq?kZVuk] liZna'k] lhoj lQkbZ ,oa xSl fjlko rFkk cksjcsy es fxjus ls gksus okyh nq?kZVuk dks jkT; vkink ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus dh Jh jkT;iky egksn; lg"kZ Lohd`fr iznku djrs gSA 4- ekuo oU; tho }Un (Man-Animal Conflict) dks Hkh jkT; vkink ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ij lS}kafrd lgefr gqbZ gSA bl laca/k es foLr`r fn'kk funsZ'k i`Fkd ls fuxZr fd;s tk;saxsA 5- mDr ?kksf”kr jkT; vkinkvksa ds laca/k es gksus okyk O;; vuqnku la[;k&51 ds vaRkZxr ys[kk 'kh”kZd ^^2245&izkd`frd foifŸk ds dkj.k jkgr&05 LVsV fMtkLVj fjLaikl Q.M&800&vU O;;&06 LVsV fMtkLVj fjLikal Q.M ls O;;&09 jkT; ljdkj }kjk ?kksf"kr vU; vkinkvks gsrq fMtkLVj fjLikal Q.M ls O;;&42 vU; O;; ls ogu fd;k tk;sxkA ¼js.kqdk dqekj½ vij eq[; lfpoA^^ 13. As certain clarifications were required with respect to those contingencies wherein whereat the deceased died on account of snake bite (venom) and the claim so preferred were being rejected on the pretext that the viscera report was not available so the respondent no.1 issued a letter dated 08.07.2021 addressed to all the District Magistrates throughout the State of U.P. clearly providing as under:- ^^vfr egRoiw.kZ la[;k&157@,d&11&2020&04¼th½@2015&VhŒlhŒ izs"kd] eukst dqekj flag] vij eq[; lfpo] mŸkj izns'k 'kkluA lsok es] leLr ftykf/kdkjh] mŸkj izns'k jktLo vuqHkkx&11 y[kuÅ & fnukad % 08 tqykbZ] 2021 fo"k; %& liqZna’k ls gq;h e`R;q es e`rd ds vkfJrksa dks vgsrqd lgk;rk iznku fd;s tkus ds lEca/k esA egksn;] 1- mi;qZDr fo”k;d 'kklukns'k la[;k&;wŒvksŒ20@,d&11&2018&4¼th½@2015 fnukad 02-08-2018 es liZna'k dks jkT; vkink ?kksf"kr djrs gq, liZn'k ls e`R;q dh n'kk es izR;sd e`rd ds vkfJrks dks :Œ04-00 yk[k dh vgsrqd lgk;rk fn;k tkuk izkfo/kkfur gSA 2- 'kklu ds laKku esa vk;k gS fd liZna'k ls e`R;q dks izekf.kr djus ds fy, e`rd dh foljk tkap gsrq Qkjsafld ySc Hksth tkrh gS vkSj e`rd dh foljk tkap fjiksVZ dh izrh{kk es e`rd ds vkfJrksa dks vgsrqd lgk;rk le; ls miyC/k ugh djk;h tkrh gSA Qkjsafld LVsV yhxy lsy ds vuqlkj liZn'k ds izdj.kks esa foljk fjiksVZ dks fiztoZ djus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gS rFkk muds }kjk voxr djk;k x;k gS fd foljk tkWp fjiksVZ ls liZna'k ls e`R;q izekf.kr Hkh ugh gksrk gSA 3- LVsV esfMdks yhxy lsy ds ijke'kZ ds Øe es liZn'k ls e`R;q dh n'kk esa foljk tkap fjiksVZ dh dksbZ izklafxdrk u gksus ds dkj.k lE;d fopkjksijkar liZn'k ls e`Rkd ds vkfJrksa dks vgsrqd lgk;rk miyC/k djk;s tkus gsrq fuEu of.kZr izfØ;k dk ikyu fd;k tk; %*& ¼1½ e`rd dh iapukek djk;k tk;A ¼2½ e`rd dk iksLVekVZe djk;k tk;A ¼3½ iksLVekVZe ds i'pkr e`rd dh foljk fjiksVZ fiztoZ djus dh vko';drk ugha gSA ¼4½ liZna'k ls e`R;q ds vkfJrksa dks vf/kdre 07 fnu ds vUnj vgsrqd lgk;rk miyC/k djk;h tk;A 4- vr% bl lEcU/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd liZna'k ls e`R;q ds izdj.kks esa mijksDRk izfØ;k dk ikyu djrs gq, e`rd ds vkfJrks dks vgsrqd lgk;rk miyC/k djkus lEca/kh izdj.kks dks 07 fnu ds vanj fuLrkfjr djus dk d”V djsA Hkonh; ¼eukst dqekj flag½ vij eq[; lfpoA^^ 14. Perusal of the letter in the shape of clarification dated 08.07.2021 issued by the respondent no.1 addressed to all the District Magistrates throughout the State of U.P. will clearly reveal as under: (a) Panchnama of the deceased is to be conducted. (b) Post mortem of the deceased is mandatory. (c) After post mortem there is no need to preserve the viscera report. (d) compensation to be paid within a period of 7 days from the date of death of the deceased, who dies on account of snake bite. (e) Viscera report does not certify that the deceased died of snake bite (venom). 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to argue that the entire stand so taken by the respondents in withholding the payment of an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-as an ex-gratia compensation pursuant to the death of the daughter of the petitioner on account of snake bite due to unavailability of viscera report is thoroughly unjustified as once on 08.07.2021 the State of Uttar Pradesh has come up with a policy decision there is no need to await for obtaining viscera report for the grant of compensation then obviously the petitioner was entitled to be conferred with the benefit of ex-gratia compensation within a period of 7 days. 16. In order to buttress his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that once in the policy decision dated 08.07.2021 of the State Government it has come on record that viscera report does not certify the death on account of snake bite (venom) then in these circumstances withholding of monitory compensation in shape of ex-gratia payment is illegal. 17. 17. Countering the said submission, Sri Sharad Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for the State has argued that in the case in question though the samples were drawn from the daughter of the petitioner were sent for testing at Agra at first instance and thereafter to the Forensic Scientific Laboratory, Maharashtra at Mumbai but the same was not tested on account that the Forensic Scientific Laboratory, Maharashtra at Mumbai does not conduct testing as according to it has no jurisdiction to conduct test of the samples which are outside the territorial jurisdiction of Maharashtra and thereafter the samples were sent to Forensic Scientific Laboratory at Agra whereat on 20.04.2022 viscera report has been obtained according to which the following has been observed:- ^^fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk] m-iz- vkxjk izs"kd] la;qDr funs'kd] fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk mŒizŒ 15 rkt jksM] vkxjk&282001 lsok es] {ks=kf/kdkjh] lnj ,VkA i=kad & 1437 /TOX1/2022 th-M+h-ua-42 fn-21-08-2018 jkT; cuke---------------------A /kkjk %& -------------------- e`frdk dk uke dqŒuhrwA Fkkuk%& ------------------------ vkids i= laa& fnukad 18-04-2022 foljk@fo"kkDr oLrq ds izs”k.k vf/kdkjh %& izs"k.k lanHkZ %& fnukad -------------------- mi;qDRk ekeys ls lEcf/kr izn'kZ iz;ksx'kkyk es fnukaad 18-04-2022 dks fo'ks"k okgd }kjk izkIr gq,A iklZy ,oa lhy dk fooj.k ik¡p leqfnr IykfLVd tkj o nks leqfnr IykfLVd fMCch ftu ij fo'ks”k (CIVIL SURGEONS OFFICE ETAH) eq}k dh Nki uewukuqlkj v{kr FkhA izn'kksZ dk fooj.k 1- LVed dk VqdM+k e; dUVsUVl ,d leqfnzr IykfLVd tkj esaA 2- vkar dk VqdM+k ,d leqfnr IykfLVd tkj esA 3- fyoj dk VqdMk ,d leqfnzr IykfLVd tkj esA 4- fdMuh dk VqdMk ,d leqfnzr IykfLVd tkj esA 5- Liyhu dk VqdM+k ,d leqfnzr IykfLVd tkj esA 6- jDr dk uewuk ,d leqfnzr IykfLVd fMCch esA 7- ;wjhu dk uewuk ,d leqfnzr IykfLVd fMCch esA ijh{k.k ifj.kk foljk ds Hkkxks ¼1&5½ o oLrq ¼6½ ,oa ¼7½ esa dksbZ jkl;fud fo"k ugh ik;k x;kA^^ 18. According to learned Standing Counsel the testing of the viscera report itself shows that the venom which was found in the blood of the deceased was chemical poison only. 19. According to learned Standing Counsel the testing of the viscera report itself shows that the venom which was found in the blood of the deceased was chemical poison only. 19. Learned Standing Counsel when confronted with the policy decision/clarification dated 08.07.2021 as referred to above could not dispute the same and had made a submission at bar that now in view of the policy decision dated 08.07.2021 the requirement of obtaining viscera report for the grant of monitory compensation/ex-gratia payment referable to death on account of snake bite stands dispensed with and what is to be seen is the fact that the panchnama as well as post mortem has been conducted or not. 20. Sri Sharad Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel has thus argued that in view of the letter of the Kanoongo addressed to the petitioner now the petitioner's claim will be processed and the same will not be denied or the benefits would not be denuded on the ground that the viscera report is either not available or not in favour of the petitioner. 21. Be that as it may be, in view of the arguments so sought to be advanced by the rival parties and further the fact that the learned Standing Counsel has not disputed the existence and the applications of the policy decision/clarification dated 08.07.2021 that the requirement of obtaining viscera report stands dispensed with, the present writ petition is being allowed in the following terms:- (A) Petitioner within a period of one month from today shall prefer a representation before the respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Etah alongwith the certified copy of the order so passed today annexing with complete documents in support of his claim. (B) The respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Etah, on receipt of the representation so preferred by the petitioner, shall decide the claim of the petitioner within a further period of one month for grant of compensation/ex-gratia payment to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-without insisting for the requirement of viscera report in the light of the observation made herein above.