1. Mrs. Rani was passing through a thorough fare at village Kartholi adjoining village Maheen Sarkar of Tehsil Samba District Jammu when on coming in contact with the snapped 11 KV Aerial Line, she got electrocuted. Mushtaq Ahmed, her husband, Fermin Akhtar, Nasreen Akhtar and Naseema Begum, her minor daughters, have filed this writ petition seeking a command against the respondent-State and its functionaries in the Power Development Department to pay them Six Lac rupees (Rs. 6.00 lac) along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum as compensation for the death of Mrs. Rani.

2. Petitioners have claimed compensation from the respondents on the ground that they had laid 11 KV Aerial Line for transmitting electric energy over a thorough fare contrary to the provisions of Section 17 of the Electricity Act, 1997 (1940 AD) and had omitted to maintain the Aerial Line properly which because of its poor maintenance had remained suspended at low height for couple of days before it snapped on 14.10.1995 entirely because of the negligence and non-performance of statutory duty by the respondents because of which Mrs. Rani got electrocuted while passing through the thorough fare.

3. Contesting petitioners case, the respondents, besides questioning the maintainability of the writ petition say that the writ petition involves adjudication of disputed questions of fact which course may not be permissible in exercise of writ jurisdiction and only course available to the petitioners to seek adjudication of their claim of compensation was to file a civil suit. As regards the merits of the case, it has been stated that maximum care is taken by the respondents in laying Transmission Lines which are laid in such a manner which may not be hazardous to the safety and health of living beings.

4. Disputing the petitioners case that the accident had occurred because of the negligence of the respondents and their Field Staff, the respondents have denied their liability to pay compensation to the petitioners.

5. Although the allegation projected by the petitioners that the Aerial Line had been lying on the ground, has been denied, yet the respondents have specifically admitted about the snapping of the Aerial Line at the lime of the accident in which Mrs. Rani had been electrocuted.

6. Petitioners have placed on records a copy of Police Report no. 27 of 14.10.1995, Entry made by the Police Station, Bari Brahamana at S. No. 73/95 in Register No. 15, and photocopy of the Post Mortem report no. 395/95 evidencing the death of Rani as a result of electrocution on 14.10.1995.

7. Appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Navneet Dubey, submitted that failure of the respondents to maintain 11 KV Aerial Line passing over Kartholi area had resulted in its snapping and ultimate electrocution of twenty six years old Rani, the respondents were thus liable to pay compensation for the death of Rani in view of law laid down by Honble Supreme Court of India in M.C. Mehta and another v. Union of India and ors reported as (1987) 1 SCC 395.

8. Referring to a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Joginder Singh v. State of J&K and ors, OWP no. 647/2002, Mrs. Hakim, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioners cannot invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court to seek adjudication of disputed questions of fact. According to the learned counsel, the writ petition was not maintainable as it did not involve the infraction of any fundamental or legal right.

9. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.

10. Before dealing with the plea raised by the respondents as to the maintainability of the writ petition by the petitioners, regard needs to be had to what has been stated by the petitioners in paragraph nos. 4 and 10 of their writ petition and reply of the respondents thereto. These paragraphs of the writ petition and reply of the respondents read thus:

Parag

Click Here to Read the rest of this document