THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.28197 of 2008 Dated: 27.09.2010 Between: M/s. Vyjayanthi Educational Society Rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent Sri G.Panduranga Reddy. .. Petitioner. And Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Principal Secretary, Energy, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad, And others. .. Respondents. ORDER: It appears, the petitioner, which is an Educational Society, had established an Engineering College in its land to an extent of about 25 acres situated in Sy.Nos.373, 374, 1242, 361 and 362 of Seriguda village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. According to the petitioner, as 33 KV and 11 KV high tension electricity wires were passing through its land, it submitted a representation to the 4th respondent-Divisional Engineer, Electrical Operation, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District, requesting him to shift the said wires passing through its land. Pursuant thereto, the 4th respondent, by his letter dated 21.06.2005, accorded sanction for execution of the works by party on turn key basis subject to condition that the works should be executed by a licensed electrical contractor under the supervision of the 3rd respondent Company and certain other conditions stated therein. The grievance of the petitioner is that it handed over the demand draft dated 10.07.2009, for the demanded amount, and thereafter paid a sum of Rs.50,000/-, towards advance, on 10.07.2008 to M/s. Ravi Raja Electricals, the 5th respondent herein, which is a licenced electrical contractor and whose quotation was accepted, for the purpose of shifting the high tension lines, but its request has not been considered, and in the meanwhile, on 14.08.2008, one E. Ravi Kanth, a second year student of its Institution, died outside their institution due to electrocution, which occurred due to dereliction on the part of the respondent in shifting the high tension lines, and for the death of the said student, it proposed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the family of the deceased, and as such, on 18.08.2008 paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the parents of the deceased. Hence, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions. Respondents 2 to 4 filed a detailed counter affidavit denying any dereliction or negligence on their part in shifting 11 KV and 33 KV high tension wires from the premises of the petitioner society. This appears to be a peculiar case. May be 11 KV and 33 KV high tension wires are passing through the premises of the petitioner and the petitioner made a representation to the 4th respondent for shifting of the wires and also paid requisite fees, but that itself does not mean that because of the negligence on the part of the respondents in shifting the wires, the accident had taken place and the petitioner had to sustain loss of Rs.10,00,000/-, towards compensation to the parents of the deceased E.Ravi Kanth who died in that accident. The aspect of negligence cannot be decided without leading both oral and documentary evidence. In T.N.Electricity Board v. Sumathi[1], it was held that the High Court cannot award compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the death caused due to electrocution on account of improper maintenance of electric wires or equipment by the Electricity Board nor it can appoint an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to decide the quantum of compensation and then make the award of the arbitrator rule of the Court. Therefore, unless negligence is established by leading both oral and documentary evidence, the compensation cannot be paid. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that this is a case where the petitioner could have laid a suit and sought for damages, and the writ petition of this nature is not maintainable and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner Society or to the parents of the deceased student to file appropriate suit and work out the remedies as available under the law. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 27.09.2010 v v [1] 2000 (4) SCC 543