The Bombay High Court in Anuja Arun Redij v. State of Maharashtra emphasised that it is the duty of the State government to protect wild animals and not allow them to wander outside the restricted zone. It further stated that it is also obligatory upon the state to protect the citizens from any injuries by wild animals.
The Petitioner approached the Court to seek directions against the Respondents to pay compensation to the Petitioner as per Government Resolution dated 11th July 2018, on account of the death of her husband due to an attack by wild Boar on 5th February,2019.
She wrote to the Forest Officer intimating the same and also seeking relief on 14th March,2019 but her application was denied on the pretext that the incident wasn’t reported to the nearest police officer within 48 hours of the occurrence of the accident, and also that the panchnama had not been conducted within 3 days of the accident in the presence of a forest officer. Aggrieved by this response, the Petitioner wrote to the Forest Minister for the State of Maharashtra but got no response.
Hence, this petition was filed by her.
The Court after hearing both the parties observed that “It is necessary to note that it is the duty of the concerned officer of the State Government to protect wild animals and not allow them to wander outside the restricted safety zone. Similarly, as a corollary duty, it is also the obligation cast upon the concerned officers to protect the citizens from any injuries by the wild animals. Thus, it is a twin obligation of the State Government. The first to protect the wild life (wild animals) and the second to protect humans from any injuries caused by any wild animal. It is thus an obligation of the State Government to protect lives of the citizens guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
It was also observed that the reasons for rejecting the Petitioner’s application given by the Forest Officer are not maintainable. The fact that the said police station was immediately intimated and the fact that the death was caused due to accident occurred because of an attack by the wild animal, is not disputed, hence, the reasons given by Respondent No.2 that the accident was not informed to the nearest Forest Officer in 48 hours is irrelevant. It was indeed a duty of the said police station to intimate the same to the concerned nearest forest office. The second reason given by Respondent No.2 is that as per Government Resolution, it is mandatory to carry out panchanama by a local police officer and nearest forest officer within 3 days of the accident. The reason for rejecting the application of Petitioner recorded by Respondent No. 2 is that in the present case the officer who conducted panchanama was below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Range Forest Officer. There is nothing produced on record to support this reason and neither has the State disputed the correctness of the contents of the Panchnama.
The Court also observed that “The object of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 as seen from the Preamble of the Act itself shows that the Act is to provide for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants and for matters connected therewith ancillary or incidentally thereto with a view of ensuring the ecological and environmental security of the country. Thus, as noted above it is an obligation of the State Government to protect wild life as well as protect citizens from any injury caused by wild life. Therefore, if any wild animal causes injury to any person, this in fact is a failure of the State Government to protect the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”