The existence of an alternative remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the Court may consider the availability of an alternative remedy while exercising its jurisdiction.

This petition has come up for answering the question relating to maintainability of the writ petition in the matters where compensation on account of negligence is claimed by the petitioner.

2. It appears that on 1.6.94 in the night, a storm was there, as a result of which electricity supply of petitioner's locality was affected and some damage was also caused. At about 4.30 AM, the son of the petitioner, Mahmood Ali, came out of his room to attend to the call of nature; but he was touched by a live electric wire which was lying on the ground, as a result of which, he died on the spot at Islampur, Gandhibasti, Guwahati. The electric wire, according to the petitioner's case, was later on disconnected by the officials of the Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB). The body was sent for post mortem and thereafter the report, etc was lodged. The petitioner prayed for grant of adequate compensation on account of the death of his son, Mahmood Ali, caused by the electric wire due to negligence of the respondents. By way of interim compensation, an amount of Rs. 50,000 was prayed for.

3. We have heard Shri G. Uzir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri NN Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the ASEB.

4. It appears that when the matter was taken up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 24.11.98, the learned Single Judge passed an order for referring the matter to the Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench to decide the question of maintainability of the writ petition, as prayed for by the learned counsel for the respondents. In the order of reference, it has been mentioned that a Division Bench of this Court while deciding a similar matter by judgment dated 8.10.91 took a view that a petition cannot be entertained by the High Court for a claim of compensation. It is also observed that the Division Bench held that the ordinary common law remedy in the case of a claim arising from a tortuous liability based on negligence is by way of a suit in a competent Court. It is further observed that against the aforesaid judgment, an appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, namely, Civil Appeal No. 888 of 1992 and by order dated 1.5.96 the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal with some compensation. It seems to have been submitted before the learned Single Judge that the question of maintainability of the petition was involved, which was not decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned Single Judge observed in the referring order as follows :

“As the Division Bench of this Court held that claim for compensation from ASEB on account of death due to electrocution is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, this matter may be referred to a larger Bench to decide this point.”

This is how this matter has come up before us.

The main reason which has been assigned for referring the matter to a larger Bench is the Division Bench decision of this Court, date of which has been indicated as 8.10.91. This decision is reported in (1991) 2 GLR 303, Surjya Kanta Talukdar vs. Assam State Electricity Board & others (1991 /j (2) GLJ 363). We may first examine as to whether it has been held or not in the said case that a petition is not maintainable or is barred under Article 226 of the Constitution for the purposes of award of compensation. It was also a case where an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was claimed as compensation on account of death of the daughter of the petitioner due to electrocution on 18.3.91. An objection was taken on behalf of the ASEB that the proper remedy is by way of a suit. The Bench after considering a number of decisions, has drawn its conclusions in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment. In the concluding part of paragraph 13 it is thus observed as follows:

“A Mandamus may issue when there is a specific legal right and no specific remedy; it may be refused when there is an alternative remedy which is equally convenient, effectual, adequate or efficacious. Existence of such a