The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to invoke Art.226 of the Constitution to award compensation in cases of negligence and delay in providing rightful compensation.

A widow of a poor agricultural labourer sent a letter to Justice Balakrishnan. His Lordship Balakrishnan opinioned that the woeful facts revealed in the letter require it to be considered as an Original Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution. The letter with the opinion of Balakrishnan, J. was placed before justice Sukumaran. Sukumaran, J. deemed it fit to be taken as an application under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Notice was issued to the Kerala State Electricity Board.

When the petition came up for hearing, I directed the Electricity Board to file its reply to the letter as an affidavit. The Board has filed a counter-affidavit in the case.

2. NOW THE FACTS: The petitioner submits that she is the widow of a poor agricultural labourer. Her husband was an agricultural labourer. She tells this court that her husband was electrocuted on 5-10-1979. This tragedy happened when her husband got himself contacted with a snapped live power line. She says that she has got rely 21/2 cents of land as her sole asset in this world. The petitioner and her children are living in a small but in that 21/2 cents of land.

3. She unfolds the sordid story of her faithful and strenuous efforts which turned out barren and sterile at the Micawberish treadmill officialism of tee Electricity Board. She comes before this court after a sustained but frustrated waiting for seven long years hopefully expecting that the Electricity Board will give her adequate monetary palliative for the uncompensatable loss she has suffered. The epitome of her anguish, disappointment and dismay, she says in these words:

Certainly, the facts narrated in the letter reveal a very sad state of affairs.

4. The complaint is anchored on the inexcusable indifference and negligence of leaving a snapped wire line unattended and unguarded by any one and without any danger signal, but as a trap to snap the lives of innocent pedestrians on the route. This act of cold indifference of the respondents took away the precious life of the only wage earner of the petitioner's family. Further it is said that the Board was careless and indifferent to the extreme extent in the matter of considering the petitioner's claim for compensation. The Board was misleading and misdirecting the petitioner to frustrate her claim for compensation by resorting to the ordinary statutory remedies. She says that the Board has tailed mortally in their obligation to consider the claim of compensation.

5. The Board has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the Board has admitted that the tragic incident occurred at 4 p.m. on 5-10-1979. The counter states thus:

"A coconut cadjan leaf fell on the live line and snapped and the victim came in contact with the live line electrical conductor and was electrocuted. A spot payment of Rs. 250/- was made to the bereaved family.

The legal heirs of the deceased victim are eligible for ex-gratia compensation as per the Rules."

It is seen stated in the affidavit that the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Kottayam, recommended the maximum compensation to the legal heirs of the victim. The counter-affidavit admits the fact that it took seven years after the incident to pay even the ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 3000/-to the legal heirs of the victim. It is admitted in the counter-affidavit that on 16-5-1981 the income and heirship certificates of the legal heirs of the victim were forwarded to the Chief Engineer. But a final decision for payment of even the ex-gratia payment was taken only on 14-3-1986. This order, it seems, has been forwarded to the deponent of the counter-affidavit, namely, the Executive Engineer, and he received it only on 15-4-1986, and that on 5-9-1986 the ex-gratia payment was made to the petitioner.

6. There is absolutely no explanation offered in the counter-affidavit for the inordinate delay in the matter of paying the ex-gratia compensation. This is important when the Board itself has admitted that as per the rules in for