1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus for payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- with compound interest by way of death compensation to the petitioners on account of death of husband of petitioner no, 3 and father of rest of the petitioners.

3. The case of the petitioners is that Md. Samid died due to electrocution as transformer which was installed by the Bihar State Electricity Board exploded. It is the specific case of the petitioners that while the deceased was going to Khagaria Market and when he reached at Sanhauli Dhala Chak near Om Medical suddenly the transformer installed by the Bihar State Electricity Board bursted and father of the petitioner was engulfed in the flame of fire. He got serious injury and was taken to Sadar Hospital, Khagaria where he died in the same evening.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits negligence on the part of the respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board was cause of death of the father of the petitioners and, thus, they are entitled to be compensated.

5. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Bihar State Electricity Board wherein defence has been taken that there was neither any laches nor any lapses or deficiency on the part of the respondent-Board as a result of which the accident took place and the deceased died. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board has further argued that a criminal case being Khagaria P.S. Case No. 391 of 1996 was instituted for the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code against the officials of the Board for causing death due to negligence. The case was duly investigated by the police and the police on completion of investigation submitted final report holding the case is to be mistake of fact. The said final report submitted by the police was also accepted. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner had also filed a protest petition in the criminal case which was subsequently treated as a complaint case and was registered as Complaint Case No. 330C of 2001. In his counter affidavit he has annexed a copy of the order dated 3.8.2005 passed in Complaint Case No. 330C of 2001 by learned Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria which goes to suggest that the said complaint was dismissed in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is relevant to point out here that while passing the order dated 3.8.2005 dismissing the complaint, the learned Magistrate had considered the letter dated 12.11.1996 written by the Electrical Executive Engineer to the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Saharsa, Electrical Circle, Saharsa. The learned Magistrate has indicated in his order that from the said letter it is apparent that some technical defect had crept in the transformer which was possible due to technical reasons and the explosion in transformer was not due to any departmental negligence. Learned counsel for the respondents, thus, submits that when a criminal court has given a definite finding that there was no negligence on the part of the department as a result of which explosion took place and since the explosion had taken place due to sudden technical fault, the Board cannot be held liable for payment of any compensation. In para-8 of the counter affidavit the respondents have categorically stated that father of petitioner no.1 died due to accident and not due to any negligence and deficiency on the part of the respondents. Further in para-6 of the counter affidavit the respondent-Board, as a matter of fact, has admitted that there was a sudden explosion in the transformer which was duly installed after thorough check-up and the deceased died due to accident which took place due to unforeseen circumstance and, thus., no compensat