JUDGMENT :

As the issues involved in the two writ petitions are connected with the same incident and inter-related and the respondents impleaded are the same, both the writ petitions are taken up together for consideration on being agreed by the learned counsel for the parties. The common subject-matter in the two writ petitions is death of two victims in one incident stated to have occurred due to electrocution and directions have been sought for in these two writ petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to the respondent APDCL authorities to grant adequate compensation for such deaths.

2. [W.P.[C] no. 3000/2017] : The writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3000/2017 has been preferred by the 4 [four] petitioners together. The petitioners have stated that they are the legal representatives of one Rustam Ali. The petitioner no. 1 was the wife of Rustam Ali and the petitioner nos. 2, 3 & 4 were sons of Rustam Ali, since deceased. The petitioners have contended that Rustam Ali died in an electrical accident occurred on 21.10.2015, having come in contact with a live electric wire.

2.1. [W.P.[C] no. 3011/2017] : The sole petitioner in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3011/2017 has stated that she is one of the legal representatives of one Khairul Ali, since deceased, as she was the wife of Khairul Ali. The petitioner has contended that Khairul Ali also died in the same electrical accident, occurred on 21.10.2015, having got electrocuted through the same live electric wire. The petitioner has stated that Khairul Ali apart from the petitioner, had left behind two minor sons, aged about 11 years and 6 years respectively, as his legal representatives.

2.2. The petitioners in both the writ petitions have further asserted that the two deceased persons – Rustam Ali and Khairul Ali – were the sole breadwinner for their respective families.

3. The relevant events, in brief, leading to the institution of these two writ petitions are stated together as follows :-

3.1. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that on 21.10.2015, Khairul Ali was doing some cleaning works near an electric post in front of his house located at Village – Titkuri no. 1, Police Station – Rangia, District – Kamrup [Rural]. A bare live electric wire was hanging near the electric post closeby of which Khairul Ali was doing the cleaning works. It is contended that Khairul Ali somehow came in contact with the bare live electric wire and he received electric shock. At that point of time, Rustam Ali saw Khairul Ali and without knowing that Khairul Ali had come in contact with a bare live electric wire, came near Khairul Ali. By grabbing Khairul Ali, Rustom Ali tried to drag him away with the intention to save Khairul Ali’s life. When Rustam Ali made such attempt, he also got electrocuted. It is further stated that both the Khairul Ali and Rustam Ali met instantaneous deaths at the spot.

3.2. In the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3000/2017, the petitioners have claimed that the petitioner no. 3 had submitted an application before the respondent no. 3 on 26.10.2015 seeking adequate compensation in respect of the death of Rustam Ali, resulting from the electrical accident, occurred on 21.10.2015. In the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3011/2017, the petitioner has also claimed in similar manner that she submitted a representation before the respondent no. 4 seeking adequate compensation in respect of the death of Khairul Ali, resulting from the same electrical accident.

3.3. The prime contention of the petitioners is that the two victims met their death in the electrical incident on 21.10.2015 due to fault and negligence, solely attributable to the respondent APDCL authorities and as such, the petitioners are entitled to receive adequate compensation.

4. I have heard Ms. P.R. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. S. Banik, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL for the respondent nos. 1 – 4; and Mr. C.K.S. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 5