BABITA DEVI AND ANR vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — CWP/34569/2025

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 21st April 2026.

CNR: PHHC011852962025

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

17th December 2025

e-Filing Number

13-11-2025

Filing Number

CWP/72209/2025

Filing Date

14-11-2025

Registration No

CWP/34569/2025

Registration Date

18-11-2025

Judge

MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Coram

MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Bench Type

Single

Category

63.63 - CASES RELATING TO ALL KINDS OF COMPENSATION ( 756 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

21st April 2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

BABITA DEVI AND ANR

Adv. DHEERAJ KUMAR NARULA

Babita Devi and Anr

Vinay Kumar

Respondent(s)

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

State of Haryana and others

The Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary

Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa

The Municipal Committee, Sirsa

PWD B and R Haryana through its Secretary, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh

Orders

21-04-2026
MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Case Summary: CWP-34569-2025 Petitioners sought Rs.75 lakh compensation for their son's death in a stray animal accident on 04.12.2024. The court noted Haryana's policy provides financial assistance for such accidental deaths, but applies only from 08.09.2025 (after the incident). Rather than determining compensation itself, the court directed the competent authority to adjudicate the claim under applicable policy within six weeks, with both parties accepting this arrangement. The petition was disposed of accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CWP-34569-2025 Petitioners sought Rs.75 lakh compensation for their son's death in a stray animal accident on 04.12.2024. The court noted Haryana's policy provides financial assistance for such accidental deaths, but applies only from 08.09.2025 (after the incident). Rather than determining compensation itself, the court directed the competent authority to adjudicate the claim under applicable policy within six weeks, with both parties accepting this arrangement. The petition was disposed of accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case