( 1 ) PETITIONER father of a young boy namely Vinod, aged about 6 years at the relevant time when he died because of an accident arising out of electrocution has filed this petition claiming compensation from the respondents for death of his son.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that respondents Nos. 4 and 5 who are resident of the same village illegally put electric wire from the electric pole for the purpose of running a Tube well in their house.

( 3 ) ON 23-3-98 petitioner's son Vinod came in contact with the live electric wire which was hanging from the pole as a result of which he suffered electric shock and died on the spot. FIR (Annexure P-1) was lodged and a case under Section 304-A of i. P. C. has been registered against respondents nos. 4 and 5. Copy of the challan and connected papers are filed as Annexure P-1.

( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of respondents Nos. 1 to 3/board, in not conducting periodical inspection and maintaining electric lines properly. The case of the petitioner is that in view of the alleged act of respondents 4 and 5 coupled with the negligence and inaction of the Electricity Board's officials in preventing illegal theft of electricity by hooking of wire directly from the electric pole the accident arose and therefore, compensation of Rs. five lacs is claimed.

( 5 ) RESPONDENT/board has refuted the aforesaid and it is submitted by them that the accident arose because of the illegal hooking of wire and theft of electricity committed by respondents 4 and 5, as the accident was a direct result of the irregularity and breach committed by respondents 4 and 5. Respondents l,to 3 Electricity Board and its officials cannot be held responsible for the same. It is the case of the Board that the respondents 4 and 5 were committing theft of electricity and accident was result of the aforesaid theft committed by respondents 4 and 5 for which Board cannot be held responsible. A preliminary objection has also been raised to the effect that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, claiming compensation is not maintainable.

( 6 ) IT is the case of respondents 1 to 3 that as disputed questions and facts are involved, the petitioner is required to file a suit for damages. Initially arguments were heard by this Court and by order dated 27-9-2002 after considering the submissions made with regard to maintainability of the petition this Court has held that writ petition claiming compensation is maintainable. In this regard the findings recorded in paras 7 to 10 of the order dated 27-9-02 deals with the aforesaid question and concludes the fact with regard to maintainability of the petition.

( 7 ) THEREAFTER, this Court has directed the electrical Inspector to conduct an enquiry into the matter and submit his report. The electrical Inspector in pursuance to the order passed by this Court has conducted the enquiry and has submitted his report on 19-12-2002.

( 8 ) SHRI Ankur Modi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that as the accident was a direct result of inaction, negligence and violation of statutory rules by the respondent Board, petitioner is entitled for compensation. Referring to the provisions of Rules 29, 44 and 46 of the Indian electricity Rules and the various provisions of the Electricity Act, 1910, it was submitted by Shri Mody, learned counsel for petitioner that the respondent/board having failed to discharge its statutory duty in following the safety measures and procedure contemplated for maintenance of electric lines and the poles, they are responsible for the accident and, therefore, compensation is liable to be paid. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of M. P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari. (2002) 2 SCC 162 : AIR 2002 SC 551, M. S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, (2001) 8 SCC p. 151 : AIR 2001 S