WP(C) 8233/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY None appears for the petitioner. I have heard Mr. Bhattacharya, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5. I have also heard Mr. Handique, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.6 and 7. The petitioner by the present petition has prayed for the compensation u nder the public law remedy for the death of her husband in an incident of electr ocution occurred on 11.07.2003, alleging that due to negligence on the part of t he respondent ASEB authority in maintaining the overhead line, the incident occu rred and as a result of which the petitioner’s husband, who was aged about 30 ye ars, got electrocuted. It is the contention of the petitioner in the writ petiti on that he was the only earning member of the family and who earned about Rs.3,0 00/- per month and after his death the petitioner with the minor son is in dire financial constraint. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent ASEB authority th e allegations as leveled by the petitioner in the writ petition have been denied . The said respondents have stated in the affidavit that there was no negligence on the part of the ASEB authority in maintaining the overhead electrical line a nd as such they cannot be made liable for the death of the petitioner’s husband. A report from the Chief Electrical Inspector cum Advisor, Govt. of Assam , respondent No.7, was in view of the above called for, who is required to make an enquiry relating to the incident of electrocution and submit the report in vi ew of Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Senior Electrical Inspector, thereafter, submitted a report dated 04.12.2009, copy of which is made availabl e by Mr. Handique, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.6 and 7. In the said report, the Senior Electrical Inspector, Govt. of Assam has found that there was violation of Rule 29 and 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules on t he part of the owner of the electricity supply system i.e. the Electricity Board . The Senior Electrical Inspector, therefore, recommend strict compliance of the provisions of the said Rules for installing and maintaining its supply network in safe condition with further direction to give special attention for regular c hecking of the overhead lines and carrying out immediate and corrective work to ensure public safety. Though an appeal is provided for under the Electricity Act against the said report, no appeal, however, has been filed by the respondent A SEB authority and hence the finding recorded by the said authority in the said r eport is to be accepted. Under the provisions of the Electricity Act and Rules framed thereunder, the respondent ASEB authority is legally bound for proper maintenance of the ov erhead electrical line, which the respondent ASEB authority has failed to do. Be cause of the infraction of the Rules and for not maintaining the overhead line d rawn along Nagaon-Dhing PWD road, the incident of electrocution occurred, result ing in the death of the petitioner’s husband, thereby violating the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, for which the re spondent ASEB authority is liable for payment of compensation under the public l aw remedy. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned standing counsel producing the copy of the off ice memorandum dated 22.12.2008, issued by the Manager(IR), ASEB has submitted t hat the Board in its resolution taken on 20.10.2008 has quantified different amo unts as compensation depending on the age of the victim, in case of fatal electr ical incident occurred due to lapses on the part of the respondent Board and acc ordingly the petitioner would be entitled to Rs.1,50,000/-, the age of the victi m being in the age group of 20 to 55 years. Perusal of the said office memorandum reveals that such amount was fixed by the Board almost 3(three) years back. The rate of inflation cannot be ignore d by the Court. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that Rs.2,00,000/- would be appropriate amount of compensation be awarded under the public law remedy for violation of the fundam ental rights and as such the respondent Board is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,0 0,000/- to the petitioner by means of a demand draft drawn on any nationalized b ank having branch at Nagaon. It would be the responsibility of the Chief Enginee r (Commercial), ASEB at Paltan Bazar, Guwahati to intimate the petitioner about passing of this order by this Court and to pay the said amount by means of a dem and draft to the petitioner. The said amount shall be paid within 45 days from t oday. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. Bhattacharya, learned standing counsel for the respondent Board. The writ petition is accordingly allowed as indicated above. No costs.