HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.8250 of 2003 Order: Petitioners herein, who are minors, filed this writ petition through their guardian, seek directions by way of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakh each to them on account of loss of life of the mother of the first petitioner and burn injuries suffered by the second petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that on 07-05-2000, the mother of the first petitioner, late Smt. Anjamma, who was hanging washed clothes on the terrace of the house in which she was living, suffered burn injuries on account of electrocution and succumbed to the same. It is state that second petitioner was also present there and she too suffered burn injuries on account of electrocution. It is the case of the petitioners that the electricity supply wires from the sub-station to the transformer (11 k.v.) which were passing in front of their house got snapped and fell on the mother of the first petitioner as well as the second petitioner, thereby resulting in the death of the mother of the first petitioner and severe burn injuries. It is their case that snapping of electricity wires is due to the negligence on the part of the respondents in maintaining electricity wires; as such the respondents are liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- each to them. It is stated that though they got issued legal notice dated 15-09- 2000 to the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.1 lakh and Rs.60,000/-, the respondents have offered only a meager amount of Rs.20,000/- towards ex gratia. Hence, this writ petition. 3. In the case of S.D.O., GRID CORPN. OF ORISSA LTD. v. TIMUDU ORAM[1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has examined the maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming relief of compensation in case of deaths on account of electrocution. In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chairman, Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sukamani Das[2], held as under: “ In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petitions even though they were not fit cases for exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court went wrong in proceeding on the basis that as the deaths had taken place because of electrocution as a result of the deceased coming into contact with snapped live wires of the electric transmission lines of the appellants, that admittedly/prima facie amounted to negligence on the part of the appellants. The High Court failed to appreciate that all these cases were actions in tort and negligence was required to be established firstly by the claimants. The mere fact that the wire of the electric transmission line belonging to the appellants had snapped and the deceased had come into contract with it and had died was not by itself sufficient for awarding compensation. It is also required to be examined whether the wire had snapped as a result of any negligence of the appellants and under which circumstances the deceased had come in contact with the wire. 4. In view of the judgments referred above, it is not possible for this court to examine whether there was negligence on the part of the respondents in maintaining the electricity lines or not, in the absence of any evidence. In view of the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred above, this writ petition is not maintainable. 5. Following the afore-stated judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the writ petition is covered to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the petitioners are eligible for any amount towards ex gratia, they may approach the respondents, by fling an application, for payment of such amount. I am sure that if any such application is filed, the respondents will examine the same and take appropriate steps for payment of ex gratia to the petitioners. No costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. June 2, 2009 MRR/amd [1] (2005) 6 SCC 156 [2] 1999 7 JT 109