IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.408 of 2009 Chandradeo Prasad, Son of Late Ram Kishun Mahto, Resident of Village Mayapur, PS Bara Chatti, District Gaya. ------ Petitioner. Versus 1. Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Electrical Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Gaya. ----- Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Suraj Narayan Yadav, Advocate Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State Electri- : Ms. Renu Jha, Advocate city Board Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate ********* 4 25.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is the son of late Ram Kishun Mahto who died on account of electrocution. On 1.10.2008 at about 7 P.M. in the evening while late Ram Kishun Mahto and his son were returning from the filed, an electric wire of 11000 K.B. touched him which laid to electrocution of late Ram Kishun Mahto. This writ application has been filed praying therein that the Bihar State Electricity Board should award a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the petitioner for death of his father as he has died due to negligence of the Electricity Board. It is pleaded in the writ application that the villagers had time and again informed the Executive Engineer of the Electricity Board that a wire is hanging in the village which needs to be attended to. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Board in which it is said that there is no written application by the villagers before the officers of the Electricity Board. The fact remains that the 2 case of the petitioner is that the wire was hanging in the air at a level, so that if any person come in contact with the wire, he would be subjected to grievous injury or as in the present case death due to the contact with the live wire. The question as to whether the Board was informed regarding this aspect of the matter is disputed by the Electricity Board. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court has held in the case of SDO, GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED & ORS. Vs. TIMUDU ORAM [(2005) 6 SCC 156] and in the case of CHAIRMAN, GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED (GRIDCO) & ORS. VS. SUKAMANI DAS (SMT) & ANR. [(1999) 7 SCC 298] that the petitioner would have to prove negligence before grant of compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand refers to a case decided by this Court in CWJC No. 15781 of 2001, disposed of on 13.5.2002 wherein the Court has directed the Board to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the writ petitioner of that case by way of compensation. Considering all the facts aforesaid, death in this manner can be said to be a violation of human rights and as such, as per the decision of this Court in the case of Indravati Devi Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. Passed in CWJC No. 9562 of 2008, this Court refers the matter to the State Human Rights Commission for consideration. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)