IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2954 of 2008 SOBHA DEVI w/o late Sushil Kuamr alias Sunil Kumar, resident of village- Majidpur, Post- Pariari, P.S. Kinger, District- Arwal. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.The District Magistrate, Arwal. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Arwal. 4. The Addl. Collector, Arwal. 5. The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Arwal. 6.The Circle Officer, Karpi, Arwal. 7. The Block Development Officer, Karpi, Arwal. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Prasad For the Respondents : G.A.4. 2 30.4.2010 Petitioner‟s husband died as a consequence of attacked by extremists. It is not in dispute that the extremists made indiscriminate firing and torched a jeep. Petitioner‟s husband, who was standing nearby, tried to extinguish the fire, sustained extensive third degree burn injuries because of which he died. Petitioner is the widow and seeking rehabilitation as per Scheme and Government policy decision including compassionate appointment that is available to victims of extremists. State has denied on a technical distinction between an incident and an accident. Though the basic fact, as noted above, is not disputed, State states that petitioner‟s husband did not died directly as a consequence of extremists attacked but indirectly as a consequence thereof and thus is not entitled to any compensation or rehabilitation. Having considered the matter , in my view, State is taking myopic view and forgetting the true intention of the scheme and the policy. It is too technical plea to be entered by the Court. 2 In the present case, it cannot be disputed that immediate cause of death or the proximate cause of death was extremist attack . Connection between extremist attack and the death of petitioner‟s husband cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be remotely to entitle the petitioner to a sympathetic consideration. In this regard I may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd., -v- Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and others since reported in AIR 1992 SC 152 wherein in para 11 their Lordships have quoted the words of Lord Denning and have held thus: “ The answer to this is in the words of Lord Denning: “Now I know that a public authority cannot be estopped from doing its public duty, but I do think it can be estopped from relying on a technicality and this is a technicality” (See Wells v. Minister of Housing and Local Government, (1967) 1 WLR 1000 at p. 1007). Francis Bennion in his „ Statutory Interpretation”, 1984 edition, says at page 683: “Unnecessary technicality: Modern courts seek to cut down technicalities attendant upon a statutory procedure where these cannot be shown to be necessary to the fulfillment of the purposes of the legislation.” Thus, seen the claim of the petitioner appears to be just and proper. State , which is a welfare State must come forward and extend all benefits that are available as per State policy and the Scheme for the people affected by extremists. 3 The order of the State Government in this regard is thus quashed and the matter of remitted to District Magistrate, Arwal for reconsideration in accordance with the observations and directions , as noted above. As the matter has already got delayed, it is expected that District Magistrate, Arwal would take a final decision in the matter within six weeks from the date of filing of a copy of this order before him. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)