SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 47268

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.Sathish Kumar, M.Jothirman, JJ
Thenkarai Maharajan – Appellant
Versus
Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board – Respondent
W.A.(MD)No.767 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.T.Perumal
For the Respondents: S.Deenadhalayan

Disputed questions of fact, such as the veracity of an FIR or allegations of negligence in an electrocution incident, cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution; such matters must be brought before a competent civil court.

Headnote:The case involves a claim for compensation due to electrocution, alleging negligence by the electricity authority in maintaining high-tension cables near a residence. The petitioner contended that the death resulted from official negligence, while the electricity board maintained that the deceased was electrocuted while attempting to steal electricity, as evidenced by a police FIR. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, finding no evidence of negligence on the part of the board. The court addressed the issue of whether disputed questions of fact regarding the veracity of a registered FIR and claims of negligence could be determined in writ proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The court held that such factual disputes, particularly where a police FIR stands as a public record, must be adjudicated by a competent civil court through the adduction of evidence rather than through summary writ jurisdiction. The writ appeal is dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision to reject the claim.

Table of Content
1. overview of the background regarding compensation claims for alleged electrical negligence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. writ courts will not adjudicate disputed questions of fact requiring evidence beyond the scope of public records. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, in and by which the claim of compensation for the alleged negligence on the part of the respondent was rejected, the present writ appeal has been preferred.

2.It is the case of the writ petitioner/appellant that his son was electrocuted when he had come into the contact with HT electric cables, which are very close to the residence of the writ petitioner. Despite repeated representations made to the authorities, no action has been taken by the respondent to shift the electric poles, which resulted in electrocution of his son. However, FIR has been forged by the respondent as if the petitioner's son was electrocuted at the time when he attempted to take the electricity line illegally for running his shop. Hence, the writ petition was filed seeking compensation.

3.The learned Single Judge found that an FIR had been registered and that the contents of the FIR clearly indicates that the petitioner's son was electrocuted while attempting to illegally steal electricity for his shop. The learned Single Judge therefore concluded that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent Electricity Board and dismissed the writ petition.

4.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that FIR has been registered as if the deceased at the time of attempting to steal electricity from a high-tension wire, suffered electrocution. According to the appellant, the same itself clearly indicates that FIR has been fabricated by the police officials.

5.Be that as it may, we are of the view that such disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in the writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Once an FIR has been registered by the competent authorities, it forms part of the public record.

6.If the appellant seeks to establish that FIR is fabricated and that the death of his son occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the respondent and not because of any act of the deceased, it is open to him to establish the same before the competent civil Court by adducing appropriate evidence.

7.In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top