The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of parties under the law of torts to compensate for injury suffered by another person, emphasizing the foreseeable risk inherent in the activity and the duty of authorities to prevent mishaps.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, for a direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-towards compensation for the death of his wife, Smt.Rukmani Bhoi @ Panibudi and daughter, Miss.Bijuli Bhoi in electrocution.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the petitioner are that on 9.9.2002 in the early morning, while his wife, Smt.Rukmani Bhoi @ Panibudi and daughter, Miss. Bijuli Bhoi were going to fetch drinking water from a tube-well nearby their residence, they came in contact with a live electric wire snapped from the pole, as a result of which, they died on the spot due to electrocution. The occurrence was reported in the Turekela Police Station, whereafter P.S.U.D. Case No.05 of 2002 was registered. The dead body, on completion of inquest, was sent for autopsy. With this factual scenario, this petition has been filed.

3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party no.1. The case of opposite party no.1 is that the petition is not maintainable. The death of Smt. Rukmani Bhoi @ Panibudi and daughter, Miss. Bijuli Bhoi by electrocution on 9.9.2002 was not within the knowledge of opposite party no.1.

4. Heard Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the opposite parties.

5. The short question that arises for consideration of this Court is as to 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 and the opposite parties can deny the liability ?

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 of the State. The High Court cannot pull down the shutters.

10. In M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, (2001) 8 SCC 151, the apex Court observed as under :

“Next is the issue of “maintainability of the writ petition” before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellants though initially very strongly contended that while the negligence aspect has been dealt with under penal laws already, the claim for compensation cannot but be left to be adjudicated by the civil laws and thus the Civil Court’s jurisdiction ought to have been invoked rather than by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. This plea of non-maintainability of the writ petition though advanced at the initial stage of the submissions but subsequently the same was not pressed and as such we need not detain ourselves on that score, excepting however recording that the law Courts exist for the society and they have an obligation to meet the social aspirations of citizens since law Courts must also respond to the needs of the people. In this context, reference may be made to two decisions of this Court : the first in line is the decision in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (AIR 1993 SC 1960) wherein this Court relying upon the decision in Rudal Sah (Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar), (AIR 1983 SC 1086) decried the illegality and impropriety in awarding compensation in a proceedi