The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of a writ application under Article 226 for compensation in cases of electrocution, the liability of parties in cases of electrocution, and the principle of strict liability.

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 compensation for the death of their cows and bullocks in electrocution.

2. Sans details, the case of the petitioners are that on 20.7.2000 at about 10 A.M., while their cows and bullocks were grazing in the field near the wooden bridge of the village, they came in contact with the live electric wire snapped in a nearby water body, as a result of which, all died on the spot. On the very same day, the petitioners lodged an F.I.R. before the Dhusuri Police Station, whereafter Station Diary Entry No.392/20.7.2000 was made. On enquiry, it was found that eight numbers of cows and bullocks while crossing the wooden bridge for grazing, they came in contact with the live wire, which was fallen in the water, as such the water was charged and all of them died. The dead bodies on completion of inquest were sent for autopsy. The post-mortem report reveals that death of the cows and bullocks was caused due to shock. With this factual scenario, this petition has been filed for compensation.

3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by opposite parties 2 to 4. The opposite parties challenge the maintainability of the writ application, as the same involves adjudication of disputed question of facts. There was no negligence on their parts and all precautionary steps had been taken to avoid any unnatural incident. The report of the police in connection with the station dairy entry is not the conclusive proof to substantiate negligence. The post mortem report does not reveal electrocution of the animals.

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

5. 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 the opposite parties can deny the liability to pay compensation to the petitioners on the death of cows and bullocks due to electrocution on the ground that there was no negligence on their part ?

Point Nos.1 and 2.

6. The subject of matter of dispute is no more res integra.

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 subsequent