A.C. Upadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.B. Siddique, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned standing counsel, ASEB as well as Dr. B. Ahmed, learned standing counsel, Irrigation, for the respondents. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for a direction to pay compensation of Rs. 10 Lacs each to the petitioners, for the loss suffered by them due to electrocution of their sons, on 18.7.2010, at Putikhaiti in the district of Nagaon due to negligence of the respondents.

2. Brief facts, leading to filing this writ petition is as follows:-

Both the petitioners are agriculturalists by profession having their family members, who contribute in their earnings. Son of Petitioner No. 1, namely, Md. Harun Rashed (19 years), was a Rajmishtri by profession and son of petitioner No. 2, namely, Sabirul Islam (15 years), was a helper of Rajmishtri by profession. On 18.7.2008, both sons of the petitioners above named had gone for catching fish in Puthikhaiti Beel. Irrigation department had added a new pipeline in the Pump set installed near the Puthikhati Beel (pond). However, while connecting electricity, a live wire was attached with the new iron pipe. The victims being unaware of the death trap came in contact with the new iron water pipe connected with live electric wire and thus got electrocuted. As a result of this, both of them suffered severe burn injuries on their persons and died on the spot.

3. One Md. Rustom Ali, younger brother of the petitioner No. 1 filed an 'ejahar' before the Rupahihat police station, stating about the electrocution of the victims. On receiving the FIR, police registered a case and enquired into the matter. Police, thereafter, confirmed that the death was due to electrical shock. A certificate to that effect was also issued by the local police authority.

4. Accordingly post mortem examination of the dead body of the victims was carried out by the Doctor of B.P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon. The doctor also opined that the death was due to shock, as a result of the electric burn. The petitioners, thereafter, submitted representation before the authority concerned claiming compensation of Rs. 10 Lacs each, for the loss of life of their sons. But the respondent authority did not respond to said representation and in the circumstances, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking direction from this Court to compensate the petitioners for the loss of two precious lives, which occurred due to negligence of the respondents.

5. One counter affidavit dated 20.3.2012 was filed, on behalf of the Respondent No. 7 i.e. Senior Electrial Inspector, Assam, by annexing the report of the Senior Electrical Inspector, Govt. of Assam, relating to the alleged incident of electrocution, which occurred on 22.7.2008. The report of the Inspector reveals that due to non compliance of the provisions of the Indian Electricity Rule, 1956, in electric installation and for not taking preventive measure and for lack of checking and corrective maintenance works, the incident had occurred. It has been further stated in the report that had there been an effective preventive and maintenance works done by the owner of the pump house by installing effective earthing system, the incident of electrocution accident resulting in the death of the deceased persons, would not have taken place.

Apparently, the respondent ASEB should not have provided electric connection in a faulty wiring without proper verification and inspection of the earthing, electric connection etc. of the offending pumpset connection.

6. The report of the Electrical Inspector, Assam, relating to the incident, unequivocally lay the responsibility for the remiss on both the ASEB, as the provider of electricity connection, who had the responsibility to enforce compliance of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, as well as the Respondent No. 6, Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, who had installed and maintai