Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010213812022 2026:GAU-AS:10277 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6913/2022 NUR NABI SHEIKH S/O. ABDUS SAMAT @ ABDUL SAMAD, VILL. BAKUABHANGI, P.O. FUTKIBARI, P.S. BILASIPARA, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783345. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (DISASTER MANAGEMENT DIVISION) REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, (C) WING 3RD FLOOR, NDCC, JAI SINGH ROAD, NEW DELHI-110000. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE (RELIEF AND REHABILITATION) AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT. (GENERAL) DISPUR GHY.-06. 4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPTT. DISPUR GHY.-06. 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Page No.# 2/5 DHUBRI ASSAM DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783301. 6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BILASIPARA REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. AND P.S. BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783348. 7:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE DHUBRI ASSAM P.O. AND P.S. DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783301. 8:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE BILASIPARA POLICE STATION P.O. BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783348 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. Hussain, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. M. Barman, Jr. GA, Assam BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 27.07.2026 Heard Mr. M. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. G. Hazarika, the learned Page No.# 3/5 Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1. I have also heard Ms. M. Barman, the learned Junior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner who is the father of a child namely Ma Amena. Unfortunately, on 21.08.2015, while the child was travelling with her mother in a vehicle namely Max Safari bearing Registration No. AS-16-C- 1074, the driver of the vehicle while driving in a rash and negligent manner knocked the vehicle against the RCC bridge at Alengmari and the vehicle thereupon fell into the water. Resultantly, 5 (five) persons died and 3 (three) persons got injury. The wife of the Petitioner on account of the said accident expired and the Petitioner’s daughter remain untraced and in that regard, an FIR was also filed on 28.08.2015 by the Petitioner. 3. It is also seen that the Superintendent of Police (DSB), Dhubri had also submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri stating about the death of the wife of the Petitioner and the child who was an infant of 8 (eight) months old remained untraced. 4. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Deputy Page No.# 4/5 Commissioner, Dhubri in considering the application for ex-gratia compensation on account of his child in terms with the notification dated 27.07.2011 as well as the subsequent enhancement of the compensation vide the communication dated 02.05.2015, the Petitioner has approached this Court. 5. This Court has duly taken note of the notification dated 27.07.2011 and more particularly Clause 3 of the said notification wherein it is categorically mentioned as to when the ex-gratia payment would be payable i.e. when the victims are affected by cyclone, drought, earthquake, fire, flood, tsunami, hailstorm, landslide, avalanche, cloud burst and pest attack. 6. The question arises in the instant proceedings as to whether the Petitioner’s case would come within the ambit of the notification dated 27.07.2011 more particularly when it is an admitted case as would be seen from FIR dated 28.08.2015 as well as the report of the Superintendent of Police (DSB), Dhubri dated 05.10.2015 that the accident happened on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-16-C-1074 resulting in knocking the vehicle against the RCC bridge at Alengmari and thereupon, the vehicle falling in the water. 7. In the opinion of this Court, the Petitioner’s claim cannot be Page No.# 5/5 considered in terms with the notification dated 27.11.2011 and would come squarely within the ambit of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’). 8. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in view of Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988, there is an embargo in filing an application beyond the period of 6 (six) months from the date of the accident. The said submission in the opinion of this Court is misconceived inasmuch as Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988 came into operation w.e.f. 01.04.2022 and it is well settled that the said Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988 would only be applicable insofar as the accidents which occurred on or after 01.04.2022. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court therefore is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition for which the writ petition stands dismissed. 10. The dismissal of the instant writ petition however shall not preclude the Petitioner to avail remedies before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, if so advised and permissible under law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant