IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14465 of 2006 Savitri Devi, wife of Late Ram Pravesh Sharma, resident of village- Mahamadpur, P.S. Kako and District- Jehanbad Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Patna 3. The Executive Engineer, Electricity Board, Jehanabad 4. The District Magistrate, Jehanabad 5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Electricity Board Sub Division, Kako, District- Jehanabad 6. The Block Development Officer, Kako, District- Jehanabad. ----------- 4. 31.3.2010 The petitioner has come to this Court claiming compensation on account of the death of her husband because of electrocution. It is alleged that on 4.7.2006 while the husband of the petitioner was grazing his cattle in the field an electric wire of 11 thousand volts was lying in the field and her husband came in contact with the electric wire as a result of which he received massive shock and died on the spot. A fardbeyan was also given to the Officer-in-charge of Kako Police Station by the sister’s son of the deceased upon which a U.D. case was instituted and an inquest report was also prepared. In the counter affidavit the stand of the respondent-Electricity Board is that the writ petition is not 2 maintainable; that there is no mention in the inquest report of the existence of any electric wire or pole where the inquest report was made. It is also the case of the Board that the daily log sheet of 33/11 KV Power Sub-station, Ghosi, shows that the main line and the feeder line had failed for practically the whole day of the occurrence, and, therefore, there was no chance of electrocution on that day. It is further their specific case that no wire was found broken or lying on the earth with which the husband of the petitioner could have come into contact with and there is no negligence on the part of the Board. In view of the aforesaid stand of the Board, this Court finds it difficult to decide such disputed questions of fact merely on the basis of the affidavits of the parties in its writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the Board draws attention of this Court to an order dated 4.12.2009 passed in CWJC No. 14410/2009 and its analogous case in which this Court had directed the petitioners of both the writ petitions for moving before the State Human Rights Commission which would deal with it in accordance with law for redressal of 3 grievances and complaints of the petitioners at the earliest possible. In view of the aforesaid situation, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move the State Human Rights Commission or the Civil Court as she may be advised for the redressal of her grievances. S. Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)