_**WP(C).16287/19**_
1
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT**
# **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN FRIDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 14TH SRAVANA,**
## **1944**
## **WP(C) NO. 16287 OF 2019**
## **PETITIONER/S:**
KULANADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KULANADA.P.O,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN689503.
BY ADVS. V.SETHUNATH SRI.M.AYYOOBUKHAN SRI.V.R.MANORANJAN (MUVATTUPUZHA) SREEGANESH.U
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
2 JUSTIN ALBERT, MANGALATHU HOUSE,WARD NO.VI, PUTHUVAKKAL,PANAGAD MURI, KULANADA.P.O,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689503.
3 THE SECRETARY, JUSTICE (RTD),S.SRI JAGAN COMMITTEE, 1ST FLOOR,UPAD BUILDINGS,PARAMARA ROAD,KOCHI,PIN-682017.
## BY ADV SMT.K.REEHA KHADER
_**WP(C).16287/19**_
2
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
GP AMMINIKUTTY K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.7.2022, THE COURT ON 5.8.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
_**WP(C).16287/19**_
3
## **V.G.ARUN, J.**
## **----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 16287 of 2019 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 5[th] day of August, 2022**
## **JUDGMENT**
The stray dog menace and frequent instances of dog attack in Kerala, resulting in grievous injuries and even death in some cases, was brought to the notice of the Honourable Supreme Court during the hearing of a claim for compensation raised by the family of a dog bite victim. On being apprised about the gravity of the situation, the Supreme Court issued Exhibit P4 order, constituting a committee consisting of Justice (Rtd) Siri Jagan, the Law Secretary and the Director of Health Services. The Justice (Rtd.) S.Siri Jagan Committee was authorised to entertain complaints regarding injuries sustained due to dog bites, the nature and gravity of the injury, availability of medicines, the treatment administered, failure of treatment, its cure etc. The Committee was also required to identify the centres/hospitals where anti-rabies vaccines are available free of charge.
2. In terms of the above direction, the Committee submitted reports to the Supreme Court and also started hearing complaints filed by victims of dog bite and related incidents.
_**WP(C).16287/19**_
4
3. One such incident occurred in the petitioner Panchayat on 5.9.2016; On that day, while the second respondent was riding his scooter, a stray dog suddenly ran across the road. According to the 2[nd] respondent, to avoid hitting against the dog he had to brake suddenly. As a result, the scooter skidded and the 2[nd] respondent fell on the road and sustained injuries. Later, the second respondent lodged a complaint before the Justice (Rtd.) S.Siri Jagan Committee. The Committee, after due enquiry passed Exhibit P2 order fixing the compensation at Rs.1,83,714/- and directed the Kulanada Grama Panchayat to pay the amount with interest @ 9% from the date of claim till payment. Aggrieved, the Panchayat has filed this writ petition challenging Exhibit P2 order.
4. Adv.V.Sethunath, learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged the following contentions in support of the challenge;
The Justice (Rtd.) S.Siri Jagan Committee is empowered only to entertain only complaints relating to dog bite incidents. In the instant case, the second respondent had sustained injuries by falling off his scooter, when a stray dog ran across the road. The said accident cannot be termed as an incident relating to dog bite. Being so, the Committee did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and order compensation. Alternatively, it is contended that the order was passed without affording a reasonable
_**WP(C).16287/19**_
5
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and no material was available for the Committee to assess and decide the quantum of compensation.
5. Adv. K.Reeha Khader, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent, countered the contentions by submitting that Exhibit P4 order was issued in the context of constituting a new Committee and the powers of the Committee is not in any manner restricted by the observations in that order. It is pointed out that, subsequent to Exhibit P4, the Committee had submitted interim reports before the Supreme Court pointing out the menace posed by stray dogs and the measures to be taken for curbing the menace. In those reports, the Committee had enumerated situations which are affecting the public at large. Based on the reports, the Apex Court issued a detailed order on 12.8.2016 (See _Anupam Tripathi v. Union of India and others_ in [(2016) 10 SCC 688]).
6. In order to answer the contention that the impugned order was passed without affording sufficient opportunity, learned Counsel drew attention to the observation in paragraph 2 of Exhibit P2 order, wherein the Committee has observed that the Kulanada Grama Panchayat had not chosen to file any statement, in spite of a copy of the claim being served on it. Reference was also made to
_**WP(C).16287/19**_
6
paragraph 4 of the order, which reads as under;
“ _4. The Secretary of the Kulanada Grama Panchayat stated that on enquiry the incident was found to be true. From 2015-16 onwards ABC programme is being implemented in the Panchayat with the help of the District Panchayat. The Panchayat is not liable to pay any compensation. The quantum claimed is also excessive.”_
It is further submitted that a reading of paragraph 5 would show that the Panchayat did not dispute the incident.
7. It is contended that the Committee is constituted as a fact finding authority and hence, the Committee's factual findings cannot be assailed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In order to buttress the contention as to the limited scope for interference against the orders passed by the Committee, learned Counsel relied on the last paragraph in Exhibit P4 order, extracted here under for easy reference;
“ _At this juncture, we are obligated to deal with the first prayer put forth in the interlocutory application Mr. Bigu, learned counsel would submit that unless ex gratia amount is granted, the family is not in a position to sustain itself because the wife was working in the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MNREGS) and the husband in a bus driver and he has two young children Though the prayer has been opposed by Mr. Basant, learned senior counsel with singularity of conviction, we think it apt to direct the respondent-State of Kerala to pay a sum of Rs 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) to the applicant within four weeks hence. We hereby make it clear_
_**WP(C).16287/19**_
7
_that this kind of application shall not be entertained henceforth because we have already constituted a Committee as a fact finding authority and hence, any person intends to avail this kind of remedy has to move the Committee and not directly come to this Court or move the High Court.”_
8. It is true that in Exhibit P4, the Apex Court ordered the Committee to entertain complaints with regard to the injuries sustained in dog bite incidents. As rightly pointed out by the Counsel for the respondent, the above observation cannot be taken to mean that the Committee is empowered only to entertain complaints relating to dog bites. It is essential to note that Exhibit P4 order was passed after noticing the large number of instances of stray dog bites in the State. The subsequent orders, including the order reported in _Anupam Tripathi_ (supra), also indicates that the Committee is constituted for curbing stray dog menace and to ensure that the victims of such incidents get just compensation.
9. The contention that the order was passed without affording opportunity of hearing is liable to be rejected, since perusal of the impugned order shows that sufficient opportunity was granted to the Panchayat. Further, the Panchayat having admitted the incident, cannot be heard to contend that the second respondent failed to substantiate his claim for compensation with supporting documents.
_**WP(C).16287/19**_
8
10. Indisputably, the Justice (Rtd.) S.Siri Jagan Committee is constituted as a fact finding authority. Being so, there is very limited scope for interference with the factual findings of the Committee. According to me, there cannot be any such interference, unless the findings are so perverse that no prudent man would have arrived at such conclusions. As far as the instant case is concerned, I find no reason to interfere with Exhibit P2, since the findings therein were arrived at, after due consideration of all relevant aspects.
For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
## **V.G.ARUN, JUDGE**
## _vgs_
_**WP(C).16287/19**_ 9
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16287/2019**
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINDINGS IN CLAIM PETITION NO.102/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE W.P(C)NO.599/2015.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT COMMITTEE.
