ORDER :

The petitioner being the father of the deceased Sanatan Gagarai, who died due to electrocution on 25.4.1997 at about 12.30 p.m. near Nischinta under Baruan Out-post under the jurisdiction of Jajpur Police, has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the opposite parties for award of compensation of Rs.5 lakhs.

2. The petitioners case, in short, is that the deceased while discharging his duties as labourer came in contact with one live electric wire, which was in hanging condition and met with a fatal accident, pursuant to which he died. An U.D.G.R. Case No. 55 of 1997 arising out U.D.P.S. Case No. 2 of 1997 was registered on 25.4.1997 at about 12.30 p.m. under Annexue-2. The deceased left behind his old parents, who were fully depending on his earnings. Case of the petitioner is that the death has been caused due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ application claiming compensation.

3. While entertaining the writ application, this Court issued notice to the opposite parties pursuant to which counter affidavit has been filed, wherein a specific stand has been taken with regard to the identification of the deceased, which is disputed and it is stated that no person namely, Sanatan Gagarai died due to electrocution on 25.4.1997 at about 12.30 p.m. near Nischinta under Baruan Out-post under Jaipur Police Station, rather one Sanatan Bagudia on 25.4.1997 at about 11.30 p.m. while cutting tree branches, which was above the electric line, came in contact with the electric wire and suffered injuries. It is further stated that cutting the tree branches over the electric line by the said Sanatan Bagudia was without the knowledge of the opposite parties and the circumstance under which Sanatan Bagudia faced the accident was beyond the control of the opposite parties. It is stated that it is an unauthorized act of the said person. The opposite parties have further stated that Late Sanatan Bagudia was the victim for his own laches for which the Department is no way responsible nor negligent so as to award compensation in his favour and more so, since the identification of the person concerned is disputed, this writ application is not maintainable and the same is otherwise liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that relying upon the news paper cutting annexed as Annexure-1 and basing upon contradictory statement, no compensation can be claimed and further since disputed questions of fact are involved, the writ application also cannot be sustained. The further plea of the opposite parties is that since the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands establishing his relationship with Sanatan Gagarai or Sanatan Bagudia, the petitioner should be put to strict proof of the same. It is further stated that since disputed questions of facts are involved, the petitioner should approach the appropriate forum. Apart from the same, it is stated that law is well settled that the petitioner is required to establish negligence, but the petitioner has failed to produce any substantial evidence before this Court to establish such fact.

4. Mr. T.C. Mohanty, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that if the factum of death due to electrocution is true, whether Sanatan Gagarai or Sanatan Bagudia has died, is immaterial, and therefore, the authorities relying upon the title of the person concerned, should not reject the claim of the petitioner for grant of compensation, who is the person entitled to under law. He has also relied upon the judgments dated 29.6.2012 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 420 of 2011 (Sambari Nayak v. CGM, Telecom and others), dated 16.3.2011 passed in Writ Appeal No. 353 of 2010 (Executive Engineer, CESU v. Hema Sethi), Nirmala Nayak v. CMD Grid Corporation, reported in 2005(II) OLR 389 : (AIR 2005 (NOC) 524 (Ori)) and Uttam Sahu v. Chairman, OSEB, 1996(II) OLR 99 and stated that in view of the law laid down by th