Ranjan Gogoi, J.

1. This writ application has been filed seeking compensation for the death of the petitioner's wife that had occurred in an incident of electrocution on 13-8-1999. According to the petitioner, on the fateful day at about 5 p.m. the petitioner's wife, who was a daily wage earner, was working in a paddy field when an electric wire of high intensity fell on her leading to her death. In the writ petition filed, the petitioner has further averred that an FIR in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged with the jurisdictional police station, i.e. Chaigaon Police Station and an Unnatural Death Case being No. 9/99 was registered in respect of the said incident. According to the petitioner, post mortem of the body of the deceased was performed and the post mortem report indicates that the death of the petitioner's wife had occurred on account of electrocution. The petitioner has further averred in the writ petition filed that it is only after failing to get the matter of compensation redressed at the hands of the authority that the instant recourse to the writ remedy has been made seeking the relief claimed.

2. The authority of the Assam State Electricity Board has filed an affidavit contesting the claims of the petitioner. In the affidavit filed, no dispute has been raised with regard to the incident in question and the fact that the death of the petitioner's wife had occurred as a result of electrocution. According to the respondents the high intensity electric lines had snapped on account of the snapping of weasels conductor and that the said incident/accident was not on account of any negligence or failure on the part of the Board to perform any of its statutory duties or to act with due care and caution. The respondent Board, in the affidavit filed, has further taken the stand that in the present case although the information of the accident was sent by registered post to the Chief Electrical Inspector to the Government of Assam on 14-8-1999, till date, the report of the Electrical Inspector has not been submitted. In absence of the report of the Electrical Inspector, it will not be correct to hold the Board to be liable for any negligence or breach in performance of its duties. The claim of income by the petitioner's wife is also disputed by the Board and it is the ultimate contention of the Board that this Court in the facts noticed above should decline to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution to award any compensation and leave the aggrieved party to have recourse to the forum of the Civil Court in order to establish negligence, if any, on the part of the Board for the incident/accident in question.

3. Mrs. N.S. Thakuria, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner by relying on the averments made in the writ petition has contended that the deceased wife of the petitioner, as a daily wage earner, had an income of about Rs. 1500/- per month and that she was only 35 years at the time of her death. In so far as the question of negligence is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner, by relying on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari reported in [2002] 1 SCR 164 has argued that the liability of the respondent Board, in the facts of the present case, must be determined by application of the principle of strict liability in which event proof of any negligence will not be required. Relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of Ajit Deka v. Assam State Electricity Board reported in 2004 GLT 406 learned Counsel has argued that in a somewhat similar situation, in the absence of the statutory report of the Electrical Inspector this Court had not hesitated in exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution to award compensation to the claimant therein on account of death caused by an incident of electrocution.

4. The arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner have been resisted by Shri H. Roy, learned senio