The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of a writ application for compensation in cases of electrocution and the principle of strict liability, emphasizing the duty of authorities to prevent mishaps involving hazardous activities.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

In this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, for a direction to opposite party no.1 to pay compensation for the death of Udhab Paramanik, father of petitioner no.1 and husband of petitioner no.2, in electrocution.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the petitioners are that on 15.7.2000 at about 6.00 A.M., while Udhab Paramanik was going to the field, he came in contact with the electric wire fell on the ground, as a result of which, he died instantiously. Thereafter an F.I.R. was lodged before the Bari Out Post. The same was sent to Binjharpur Police Station for registration, whereafter U.D. Case No.13 of 2000 was registered. On the same day, son of the deceased made an application before the Tahasildar, Bari and requested for enquiry and compensation. With this factual scenario, this writ petition has been filed for compensation.

3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party no.1 stating therein that on 15.7.2000, Arakhita Behera, Line Man-C reported to the Junior Engineer (Elect.), Bari that at about 6.00 A.M. when he reached at Dharpur came to know that one Udhab Paramanik of village Dharpur while going to the field to attend the call of nature, he met with an accident by coming in contact with the live electric line connected to the L.I. Point. The power supply to the said L.I. point was disconnected after closure of the cultivation. Due to storm and heavy wind pressure in the last night, the conductor was snapped and accident took place. On the basis of the report of the Line Man-C, the Junior Engineer (Elect.), Bari lodged an F.I.R. before the Officer-in-Charge of Bari Police Station. Similarly for the death of Udhab Paramanik, one Dipak Paramanik lodged an F.I.R. in the out post of Bari Police Station. The electric line was snapped due to coming in contact with the branches of the tree. The son of the deceased brought this fact to the notice of the Tahasildar, Bari. It is further stated that at no point of time any complaint had been made by the petitioners before opposite party no.1 regarding death of the deceased and snapping of conductor. The incident happened early in the morning. It is further stated that there was no negligence on the part of opposite party no.1 in maintaining the supply system. Due to natural calamity, the conductor was snapped and accident was caused.

4. Heard Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 as well as Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite party no.2.

5. Two points arise inter alia for consideration of this Court ;

(1) Whether a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for payment of compensation when death is caused due to electrocution?

(2) Whether the opposite parties can deny the liability on the ground that the death of Udhab Paramanik was due to act of a third party ?

Point Nos.1 and 2.

6. An identical matter came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of T. Bimala v. Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack and others, 2015(I) OLR 637. It was held as follows:-

“9. The language of Article 226 of the Constitution does not admit of any limitation on the powers of the High Court for the exercise of jurisdiction thereunder. The power conferred upon the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution is wide enough to reach injustice wherever it is found. The apex Court in catena of the decisions laid down certain guidelines and self-imposed limitations have been put there subject to which the High Courts would exercise jurisdiction. Those guidelines cannot be mandatory in all circumstances. When a citizen approaches the High Court in writ petition that a wrong is caused, the High Court will step into protect him, whether that wrong was done by the State or an instrumentality