IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14090 of 2009 Between: Gurram Pulla Reddy, S/o. Gurram Saida Reddy, R/o. Papayapalem Village, Bellamkonda Mandal District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. Transco, Vidyutsoudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent Engineer, APCPDCL, 4/6, Brodipet, Guntur, Guntur District. 3 The Divisional Engineer, APCPDCL, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. 4 The Assistant Engineer, APCPDCL, Papayapalem Village, Bellamkonda Mandal, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue declare the action of the 4th respondent in allowing the passage of electricity in a rash and negligent manner in the support wire of the electric pole situated at hostel in Papayapaem Village, of Bellamkonda Mandal, Guntur District as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue order/s or writ/s one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 pay a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Syed Khader Mastan Counsel for respondents: Mr. P.R. Balarami Reddy (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following Order: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions, by way of Mandamus, to the respondents to pay him an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation, on account of loss of life of his son, due to negligence on the part of the respondents in maintaining electricity lines. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the son of the petitioner, by name Gurram Srinivas Reddy, while playing, came into contact with a support wire (earth wire) of the electric pole situated opposite to a hostel at Papayyapalem village, Bellamkonda Mandal, Gunur District, on 25-05-2007, got electrocuted and died instantaneously. It is alleged that there is negligence on the part of the respondents in maintaining electric wires; as such they are liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to him on account of death of his son. The petitioner also seeks directions to the respondents for grant of ex gratia as per circular instructions. 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. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, as the petitioner claims that he is entitled for ex gratia, it is kept open to him to file a representation before the respondents for payment of ex gratia on account of the death of his son. I am sure that, if any such representation is filed, the respondents will examine the entitlement of the petitioner for grant of ex gratia and take appropriate steps for payment of ex gratia. No costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. July 15, 2009 MRR ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP {RLD} [1] (2005) 6 SCC 156 [2] 1999 7 JT 109