The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of persons undertaking hazardous activities to compensate for injuries suffered by others, irrespective of negligence, as well as the maintainability of a writ application for compensation in cases of electrocution under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, for a direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-towards compensation for the death of Pramila Singh, wife of petitioner no.1 and mother of petitioners 2 to 4, in electrocution.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the petitioners are that on 30.4.2003 at about 7.30 evening, while Pramila Singh was going to her neigbour’s house crossing the village road, she came in contact with snapped electric wire, as a result of which, she died on the spot due to electrocution. The occurrence was reported in the Jaleswar Police Station, whereafter U.D.G.R.No.10 of 2003 was registered. Inquest was conducted on the body of the deceased. The dead body on completion of inquest was sent for autopsy. After receiving information about the death of Pramila Singh, the petitioners were shocked and the family received a serious set back.

3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties. The case of the opposite parties is that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that there was no latches or negligence on the part of the opposite parties for the alleged accident. It is stated that the deceased was not assisting the family as a daily labour. The police papers are not the conclusive piece of evidence for proof of negligence. After receipt of information, the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Jr. Engineer had been directed to enquire into the matter and report. During inquiry, it was found that snapping of the conductor was caused due to unauthorized obstruction of power by direct hooking from the electric wire by the persons residing near the electric pole. The petitioners and others were living just below the electric wire by constructing temporary shed and they were not the consumers. They had taken adequate steps for proper maintenance of the electric lines. At no point of time, they had received any compliant from any person about the defect in the electric wire. It is further stated that the petitioners have not furnished any documents in support of their relationship and status with the deceased and the age and the wages of the deceased. No document has been produced in order to justify the right of the petitioners for the claim.

4. Heard Mr.Samal, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the opposite parties.

5. Really two points arise 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 opposite parties can deny the liability on the ground that the death of Pramila Singh 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. 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 thoug