The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of parties in cases of hazardous activities resulting in injury or death, emphasizing the principle of strict liability and the duty of authorities to prevent mishaps in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. 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.1,50,000/- towards compensation for the death of Somanath Gouda, the husband of petitioner no.1 and son of petitioner nos. 2 and 3, in electrocution.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the petitioners are that on 7.5.2008 while Somanath Gouda was returning from the paddy field, the 11 K.V. line detached from the pole and fell on him, as a result of which, he died on the spot. One Siva Gouda reported the matter before the I.I.C., Tikiri Police Station, whereafter U.D. Case No.4 of 2008 was registered. The police rushed to the spot. Thereafter, the dead body, on completion of inquest, was sent to the Medical Officer, Tikiri P.H.C. (New) for autopsy. On the requisition of the police, the doctor, who conducted the postmortem, submitted the report stating that the cause of death may be due to accidental electrocution. The deceased was a labourer and the only earning member of the family. He was 42 years at the time of accident. 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 the opposite parties stating therein that the writ petition is not maintainable as the same involves adjudication of disputed question of facts. There was absolutely no negligence on its part in managing the over-head supply line in the locality. Death of Somanath Gouda is not attributable to the negligence of the opposite parties. It is further stated that on the enquiry it was ascertained that the contractor M/s. Maruti Associates was entrusted with the construction of a new line. It unauthorisedly kept charged the electric line without electrical inception and without knowledge of the concerned Junior Engineer and the Lineman. The line was not handed over to SOUTHCO. The investigation conducted by the police is not a conclusive proof. Further, the petitioners had never made any representation to the opposite parties at any point of time for compensation.

4. Heard Mr. G.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3.

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 Somanath Gouda 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 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 wi