The court determined that negligence in maintaining electric lines resulting in electrocution establishes liability for compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution, balancing the responsibilities of the deceased and the respondents.

1. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner Gulshan Ara, on her own and on behalf of her minor son Kashif Ali petitioner No.2, seeking a writ of mandamus directing Respondents to pay a compensation of Rs.25.35 lacs along with interest @ 12% per annum to the petitioner, on account of death of her husband - Liaqat Ali (hereinafter 'deceased' for short), due to electrocution, when he came in contact with live fallen down electric wire, near TCP Nagrota on 03.12.2003 at about 5:00 AM, and met the fatal electrical accident.

2. It is being asserted that deceased Liaqat Ali was serving in J and K Police as Selection Grade Constable and was posted on National Highway in Traffic Police; that on 03.12.2003 at about 5.00 AM, when husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2, namely, Liaqat Ali, while going to answer the call of nature towards field got electrocuted with a live wire of electricity, which was lying on a public way and received injuries / burns on the spot; that he was immediately rushed to Govt. Medical College Hospital Jammu, by the police and the people of the vicinity, where he was declared as dead, his post - mortem was conducted there and the case of death was reported as 'due to shock as a result of electrocution by High Tension Live Wire; that regarding this incident, FIR No. 189/2003 came to be registered at Police Station Nagrota for the alleged negligence of the employees of the respondents - Department, in not maintaining electric lines, properly.

3. It is contended that the untimely tragic departure of the husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 only due to negligence in maintaining the proper electric line and this negligence, on the part of the employees of the respondents Department, has resulted in this electrical accident, in which, a young man of 29 years old having about 30 years more service, was ruthlessly charred to death, as the deceased had every possibility to reach to the higher ranks in the Department by earning promotions from time to time and at that time, as per salary certificate for the month of November, 2003 annexed with the petition, the deceased had monthly salary of Rs.7763/- per month. It is being asserted that as per the documents annexed with the petition, it is an admitted case of electrocution and quantum can be decided by this Court as per salary of the deceased and 3 also keeping in view the age of the petitioners as well as of deceased Liaqat Ali and on the basis of the remaining service length of the deceased in police Department. Under the circumstances, the petitioners claiming to be his legal heirs, thus, seek compensation from the respondents for the death of deceased due to electrocution.

4. Pursuant to notice, respondents have filed objections, asserting therein that the present petition is not maintainable as none of the fundamental, statutory or legal rights of the petitioners have been violated; that in this matter disputed questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be adjudicated by invoking the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court; that the respondents were not negligent at all as the death of the deceased - Liaqat Ali occurred because of his own negligence, especially, when the said area falling within the PHE Complex was a prohibited area and was not accessible to any person and the deceased at his own risk for unknown reasons entered into the PHE Complex and because of his own negligence, it resulted into the death of the deceased due to electrocution; that there was no willful