Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) as well as learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ application has been filed seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- each, by way of compensation, to the petitioners on account of death of their sons due to electrocution. The son of the petitioners, aged about 13 years and 12 years respectively, are alleged to have died due to electric shock on 7.11.2004 as a result of high tension wire falling upon them. In this regard Giriyak P.S. Case No. 116 of 2004 under Sections 287, 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code was also lodged against the employees of the Electricity Board. It is the case of the petitioners, as is also clear from the F.I.R., that they were on way to orchard when high tension wire of 11.K.V. snapped and fell upon them resulting in instantaneous death. After inquest, post mortem was also conducted and the report mentioned that death is due to electric shock caused by live wire. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in this background various representations, since in January, 2005, have been filed before the authorities of the Board for paying compensation but nothing has materialized. Even registered representations were sent to the respondents including the Electrical Inspector but the same has not resulted in any relief to the petitioners. Learned counsel has relied on the following decisions in support of his contention.

(1) Ramawati Kuer Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2004 (4) BBCJ 230, the relevant being at paragraphs no. 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the same. (Also reported in 2004 (4) PLJR 307).

(ii) Ram Swaroop Yadav Vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. reported in 2004 (2) PLJR 525, the relevant being at paragraphs no. 6, 7 and 8. The said decision has been affirmed by the decision reported in 2006 (3) BBCJ 192 (Bihar State Electricity Board Vs. Ramswarup Yadav).

(iii) Dr. Vishwanath Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2010 (1) PLJR 986.

(iv) Md. Kashim Sah & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2011 (3) PLJR 408.

(v) M. P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari & Ors. reported in (2002) 2 SCC 162, the relevant being at paragraph no. 7 (Also reported in AIR 2002 SC 551).

(vi) Tamil Naudu Electricity Board Vs. Sumathi & Ors. reported in AIR 2000 S.C. 1603, the relevant being at paragraphs no. 8, 9 and 11 in which it is held that only in cases where the case of the Electricity Board was that there was no negligence and that the deceased had died due to lightening and not on account of improper maintenance of electric wires, and the facts being seriously in controversy, entertaining writ petition in High Court was not proper. When there is negligence on the face of it, there cannot be any bar under Article 226 of the Constitution. He submits that in the present case even as per the counter affidavit of the Bihar State Electricity Board, it is not their case that the snapping of wire was the result of lightening or thunderbolt or the case of any other person being responsible for the deaths and thus the jurisdiction of this Court is not totally ousted. 3. Learned counsel for the Board, on the other hand submits that the application under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable and the matter is more appropriate either for civil suit or consumer forum. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the following orders/judgments:- (i) Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd (GRIDCO) & Ors. Vs. Sukamani Das & Ors., reported in (1999)7 SCC 298, the relevant being at paragraph no. 6 (Also reported in A.I.R. 1999 SC 3412). (ii) SDO, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Timudu Oram reported in (2005) 6 SCC 156, the relevant being at paragraph no. 6. (iii) Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. Reported in 2005 (4) PLJR (S.C.) 213, the relevant be