IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7940 of 2011 Between: Master Rupesh ..... Petitioner AND A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co., Ltd., Rep., by its Chief General Manager (O&CS) Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Y. Sudhakar Counsel for the respondents: Smt. Jyothi Eswar Gogineni The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7940 of 2011 ORDER: This is an unfortunate case where a young boy studying third standard in St.Anns School, Rajahmundry, came into contact with a 11 KV live electrical line when he visited his uncle’s house at Sai Krishna Nagar, Rajahmundry on 04.06.2009. It is evident from the pleadings that the said incident left a trail of devastation in the family with the amputation of right hand elbow, two toes of right leg and four toes of left leg apart from part of the right foot of the boy. The petitioner, who filed this Writ Petition through his father and natural guardian, alleged that the live wire is passing very close to the building and according to him, this fact itself would amply demonstrate the negligence on the part of the respondents in laying the electrical line. On this premise, the petitioner sought for a Mandamus for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.10 lakhs and also sought for a direction to the respondents to pay ex-gratia immediately to enable him to pay the huge medical bills. Smt. Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, learned Standing counsel representing the respondents, stated that the building from which the petitioner came into contact with the live wire was constructed much after laying of the electrical line and therefore no negligence can be attributed to the respondents. Though this Court has all sympathies for the petitioner, a case of this nature cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceeding because before directing payment of compensation, the finding with regard to the negligence on the part of the respondents requires to be rendered. Unless the evidence in support of the pleadings is adduced by the parties, the issue relating to negligence of the respondents cannot be adjudicated. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the relief, which is claimed in this Writ Petition. As regards payment of ex-gratia, the learned Standing counsel stated that no provision is made by respondent No.1 for payment of such ex-gratia in cases of injuries due to electrocution and that ex- gratia is payable only in cases of fatal accidents. In the absence of any provision for payment of such ex-gratia, it is not possible for this Court to issue a Mandamus to the respondents. For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy, as indicated above. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.9861 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 31.03.2011 ES