Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010044462026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/68/2026 FARMUD ALI SO LT DHARIYA SHEIKH, RO VILL SINGIMARI, PO KHANDAJAN, PS SIPAJHAR, DIST DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN 784145 VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, REVENUE RELIEF AND REHABILITATION AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 06 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DARRANG ASSAM PO AND PS MANGALDOI DIST DARRANG ASSAM PIN 784125 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER SIPAJHAR REVENUE CIRCLE PO AND PS SIPAJHAR DIST DARRANG ASSAM PIN 784145 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DARRANG DIST DARRANG ASSAM PIN 784125 6:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE SIPAJHAR POLICE STATION PO SIPAJHAR DIST DARRANG ASSAM PIN 78414 For the Appellant(s) : Mr. M. Hussain, Advocate. : Mr. R.I. Mondal, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Ms. N. Bordoloi, Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for respondent No.1. : Ms. S. Sarma, Government Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos.3 to 6. Page No.# 2/4 –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 16.03.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. M. Hussain, learned Advocate for the appellant; Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for respondent No.1 and Ms. S. Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos.3 to 6. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 09.02.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.6801/2023, whereby the prayer made by the appellant for a direction to the State to give him compensation on account of his wife’s death in a so-called road accident has been rejected, primarily, on the ground of his case not falling within the category of such persons who are to be given compensation by the State in case of death/road accident. The learned Single Judge has heavily relied on the judgment of this Court rendered in Monisa Khatun @ Monisha Khatun -Vs- State of Assam & Ors. [judgment & order dated 21.06.2024, passed in WP(C) No.2700/2023]. It appears that in the year 2022, the wife of the appellant died while pillion-riding a motorcycle when the driver had suddenly applied brakes to avoid hitting a pedestrian crossing the National Highway near Sipajhar. The wife of the appellant fell down, suffered severe injuries and even though was administered treatment at Gauhati Medical and Hospital (GMCH), died within three days. Page No.# 3/4 An FIR was also registered under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. The appellant, being the husband of the deceased, sought ex- gratia payment of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) under the Government of Assam’s Notification dated 15.11.2014. The non-payment of the amount led the appellant to prefer a writ petition before this Court, as noted above, which was dismissed. The background facts of the Government of Assam’s ex-gratia Policy is also required to be stated in brief. The first of such Policy/Notification came out in the year 1998, granting Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) in cases of accidental death. The amount was enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) in the year 2007 for accidental death. In the year 2014, it was restricted to deaths only in public places. About a month later, on 15.11.2014, another Notification of the Government came out, superseding all earlier Notifications, clearly stipulating that ex-gratia payment of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) will be made to the next-of-kin of the persons killed due to accidents in public places or in public carriers (other than those killed by extremist/terrorist/miscreants or due to firing of security forces). There was an important addition in such Notification of “public carrier”, but there was no specification that motor accident victims would not be entitled for it if they can claim compensation from Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). Much later, in the year 2023, another Notification was issued, Page No.# 4/4 excluding normal motor accident cases, except hit and run cases and third party (not travelling in vehicle) hit by vehicle at public places from payment of ex-gratia. However, the Government employees were kept out of this exclusion. The contention of the appellant is that the State, in many cases, has paid ex-gratia amount on such deaths. Though the learned Single Judge wrongly applied the 2023- Notification to deny the claim of the appellant but the fact remains that the appellant does not come in the category of such persons even if the Notification of 2014 were to be made applicable. True it is that the wife of the appellant died while riding a motorcycle but there was nothing on the record to indicate that the death took place in open place but could be possibly called an accident, for which ex-gratia payment is contemplated. The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that, perhaps, a proceeding, in all its possibilities, is still pending consideration by the jurisdictional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), about which, the appellant did not mention it either before the learned Single Judge nor before this Court. In any view of the matter, finding the claim of the appellant to be absolutely unsupportable, we dismiss this writ appeal. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant