An electricity board is liable for negligence in maintaining its installations, and is required to pay compensation to the heirs of members of the public killed or injured by accidents in its installations, subject to an enquiry.

( 1 ) BY this writ application the petitioners have claimed compensation of a sum of Rs. 50 lacs on account of the death of one Satish Chandra Samanta since deceased, resulted in electrocution owing to alleged negligence on the part of the respondent No. 1 and/or its officials.

( 2 ) THE fact of the case as it runs in the petition, in gist is stated hereunder : the said deceased was late father of petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 and late husband of the petitioner No. 2. He was the absolute owner of the property bearing Dag Nos. 604 and 609 appertaining to Khatian Nos. 763/ 3 and 763/4 under Mouza Chautara within the Dhaniakhali Police Station in the district of Hooghly. He along with the aforesaid members of the family till his death had been residing at the said plot of land in a small house built on a portion thereof. He got electric connection for running a shallow-tube well given by respondent No. 1. His complaint was that without his consent from the point of his aforesaid electric connection an overhead electric line was drawn to give supply line to the other villagers. The said supply line was drawn without keeping minimum horizontal distance over his residential house. During his lifetime he made complaint to the authority concerned followed by proceeding under Section 144 and 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the appropriate forum. Having found no tangible result he came to this Court by filing an application under Art. 226 for removal of the aforesaid overhead line. The said writ petition (hereinafter referred to as the first writ petition) was disposed of by His Lordship the Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. B. Sinha (as His lordship then was) by passing an order dated 2nd July 1997, whereby His Lordship was pleased to observe amongst others that the respondent No. 1 is obliged to observe rule 79 of the Electricity Rules. Therefore, his Lordship was pleased to direct the Divisional Engineer, West Bengal State electricity Board, Chandannagar, to inspect personally the said overhead line to ascertain whether Rule 79 of the aforesaid Rules had been complied with or not. In the event of non-compliance, there shall be forthwith disconnection of the electricity supply through the overhead line.

( 3 ) IN spite of communication of the aforesaid order nothing was done so the said deceased filed a second writ petition being numbered 2876 (W) of 1997 and prayed for amongst others removal of the electric pole erected unlawfully on the land of the petitioner and disconnection of electric service connection given through the overhead illegal transmission line. His Lordship Hon'ble mr. Justice P. C. Ghose disposed of the second writ petition finally on 13th January, 1998 whereby His Lordship was pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 to take necessary steps for removal of the transmission line after making an enquiry into the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. The Secretary of the respondent No. 1 was also directed to take all necessary steps in this matter in the light of the order passed by S. B. Sinha, J. in the first writ petition within four weeks from the date of communication of the order. In spite of the aforesaid two orders no step was taken either by removal of electric pole or by disconnection of supply line.

( 4 ) ON 2nd July, 1998 the said Satish chandra Samanta died of electrocution occurred due to illegal installation of electric pole erected in his property, and for negligent failure to remove the same in deliberate disobedience of the orders dated 2nd july, 1997 and 13th January, 1998.

( 5 ) IN the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 1 it has denied and disputed its liability and/or obligation to pay any compensation, and the allegations of negligence has also been denied and disputed. It is stated annexing supporting document that in due compliance of the orders of this Court every step was taken but the said deceased did not co-operate with its of