1 2025:CGHC:20771 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 414 of 2025 Shivani Jain W/o Late Jainandra Jain ( Bhansali), Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dondilohara, Tahsil Dondi, District- Balod (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Collector Narayanpur, District- Narayanpur (C.G.). 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Narayanpur District- Narayanpur (C.G.). 4 - Tahsildar Narayanpur District- Narayanpur (C.G.). ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 06.05.2025 1 By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in a matter in which for the death of husband of the petitioner in fire accident YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.05.24 13:22:01 +0530 2 on 12.04.2022, compensation was refused by the Collector, Narayanpur vide its order dated 18.09.2024, as such the petitioner being aggrieved by such order, has filed the instant petition with the following relief(s):- “(i) To kindly call the records from the respondents. with respect to the case of the petitioner. (ii) To kindly set aside the order dated 18/9/2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no. 2 and letter dated 4/9/2023 (Annexure P/12) issued by respondent no.1. (iii) To kindly direct the respondent no. 2 for granting benefit of financial assistance of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the petitioner as per the provisions of Chhattisgarh Revenue Book Circular. (iv) To kindly pass any other order or grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2 According to the petitioner, her husband namely Jainendra Jain (Bhansali) was died due to burning in an fire accident on 12.04.2022 in a shop namely Mansarovar Shopping Mall situated at Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, C.G. Due to burning, the husband of the petitioner completely burnt and his burnt body was recovered from the place of incident. As there is provision for grant of financial assistance to the dependent of the deceased, as 3 such being wife of the deceased, the petitioner has moved an application before the Collector, Narayanpur for getting benefit under the Revenue Book Circular. After getting the said application, respondent No.2 has forwarded the same to the Tahsildar, Narayanpur for submitting a report. The concerned Tahsildar Narayanpur has submitted its report stating that under Circular- 6 Part IV of the Revenue Book Circular (for short, “RBC”), there is provision to provide financial assistance to the legal heirs of the deceased. The concerned Tahsildar has recommended for grant of Rs.4 Lacs as financial assistance to the petitioner and on the basis of the said report, as the fire was accidental and as such, according to the provisions of RBC, financial assistance are required to be given, however, in spite of recommendation made by respondent No.4, the Tahsildar and in spite of the fact that in the postmortem report as well as other documents, it has been categorically stated that due to fire accident, the husband of the petitioner died, however, the concerned Collector, Narayanpur has dismissed the application holding that in the Circular-6 of Part IV of RBC, there is no provision to grant financial assistance in the case of death due to accident of short-circuit. It was stated that since the accident took place due to short-circuit, as such the compensation would be paid by the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board or its ancillary company and it cannot be granted under RBC by the State. 4 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is per se illegal and contrary to the Circular-6 of Part IV of the Chhattisgarh Revenue Book Circular. In Circular-6 of Part IV, it has been specifically mentioned that in case of death by fire, the nearest relative of the deceased would be entitled to get a sum of Rs.4 Lacs by the concerned Collector. Nowhere it has been written that it should be by any other mode. 4 On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that under RBC, Circualr-6 Part IV, there is no provision to provide financial assistance on accident due to short-circuit of electricity and in this respect, when the Collector has sought guidance from the concerned Secretary, it has been stated by the Secretary that since there is no provision to grant financial assistance under Circular-6 of Part IV of RBC, the compensation cannot be granted. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition along with the relevant provisions of RBC. 6 From the perusal of Circular-6 Part IV of RBC, there is a mention that in case of death by fire, financial assistance to the tune of Rs.4 Lacs is to be awarded. There is nowhere mentioned that the fire should be by any method. There is simply mentioning death by fire. Though, the Secretary of the Revenue and Disaster Management has stated that in the RBC, there is no provision to 5 grant financial assistance in case of death by short-circuit, but there is equally no restriction in granting compensation in case of death by fire. Circular-6 of Part IV is quoted below for easy reference:- “(06) अन्य आनुग्राहि क रा त (क) जन ाहिन के लिए हिनकटतम वारिरस को आर्थिक स ायता अनुदानः- प्राकृ तितक आपदा से, नैसर्गि#क हिवपलि$यों के कारण, नदी, तााब, बांध, कुं आ, न र, नाा या #ड्डे में हि#रकर डूबने से, सप/, हिबच्छू , #ु ेरा या मधुमक्खी के काटने से, नाव दुर्घ/टना से, आ# में जने से, रसोई #ैस का सिसेण्डर या स्टोव फटने से, खदान धसकने से, ू (Sun Stroke) से, आकाशीय हिबजी या आंधी, तूफान, अतितवृहि;, बाढ़ की स्थिस्तित के दौरान पेड़/ डं#ा के हि#रने अवा हिवद्युत प्रवा / तार से मृत्यु ो जाने पर मृत व्यहिD के परिरवार के हिनकटतम व्यहिD/ वारिरस को रूपये 4,00,000 ( रूपये चार ाख) की आर्थिक स ायता केक्टर द्वारा स्वीकृ त की जाए#ी।" 7 From the aforesaid provision, it is only stated that in case of death by fire, the compensation would be given to the tune of Rs.4 Lacs by the Collector concerned. 8 In light of aforesaid aspect of the matter, since there is nothing on record to show that in case of death by short-circuit, financial assistance could not be given under RBC, this Court is of the view that though the concerned Tahsildar has recommended for grant of compensation in case of death by fire, but the Collector has 6 wrongly passed the impugned order, which is not in accordance with law. 9 In the result, the impugned order dated 18.09.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2, i.e. Collector, Narayanpur, District- Narayanpur (C.G.) is hereby set aside. The Collector, Narayanpur, i.e. respondent No.2 is directed to grant compensation to the tune of Rs.4 Lacs to the petitioner on account of death of her husband by fire. This exercise be done within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 10 With the aforesaid observations/directions, instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- - (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh