WP(C) 2628/2003 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY A claim for compensation by a widow against the Assam State Electricity Board alleging deliberate inaction and negligence in its duties is the subject m atter of scrutiny in the instant petition. I have heard Mr P Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Electricity Board (for sho rt, hereinafter referred to as ’the Board’). According to the petitioner, her husband who was working as an employee of a private firm at the relevant point of time while returning home on 11.8.200 2 at 9 p.m. met his premature death out of electrocution. Alleging carelessness and irresponsible inaction on the part of its officials, the petitioner lodged a n ejahar with the Officer-in-Charge, North Lakhimpur Police Station the same nig ht. She submitted two representations on 13.9.2002 and 16.9.2002 before the Supe rintending Engineer, ASEB, Lakhimpur claiming compensation of Rs. 12 Lakhs for t he premature loss of her husband contending that the deceased had left behind a family of six members including five minors. An alternative request for providi ng employment with it was also made. She eventually has turned to this Court for redress. The respondent Board in its affidavit while challenging the maintainabil ity of the writ petition for non-exhaustion of alternative remedy available in l aw, has stated that on receiving the news that the conductor of L.T. line had sn apped in the locality the concerned lineman immediately disconnected the supply. Asserting that till then no accident had taken place the Board has further affi rmed that the lineman after deactivating the line kept aside the snapped wire be yond the normal reach to ensure that no accident takes place even otherwise. In its affidavit the Board further mentioned that the writ petition was silent abou t the cause of death of the petitioner’s husband and that neither the death cert ificate referred to the reason therefor nor the post mortem report had been file d. It denied its responsibility for the death of the petitioner’s husband and al so refuted the claim for compensation made against it. The learned counsel for the parties have abided by their pleaded stands. A plain reading of the writ petition noticeably does not disclose as to how the petitioner’s husband was electrocuted. The supporting documents also do not cast any light on this aspect of the controversy. The death certificate anne xed to the writ petition does not disclose the cause of death. No post mortem re port has also been submitted. It is only in the representation submitted by the petitioner before the Board that there is a mention of an accidental contact of her husband with a live electric wire kept carelessly by the Board’s employees a t the spot. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, it is, therefore, not possible to decisively conclud e on the Board’s negligence or irresponsibility to be the cause of death of the petitioner’s husband. In this view of the matter, the claim for compensation can not be acceded to in the exercise of this Court’s powers under Article 226 of th e Constitution of India. Be that as it may, as it has been complained bef ore this Court that the representations dated 13.9.2002 and 16.9.2002 submitted by the petitioner claiming compensation and/or alternative employment have remai ned unheeded, it is in fitness of things to leave the concerned authority of the Board to examine the same and take an take appropriate decision thereon. The petition stands closed in the above terms. No costs.