SURYA KANTA TALUKDAR Vs. ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Assam State Electricity Board and its officers to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation on account of the death of his daughter due to electrocution on 18.3.1991 at about 5.30 a.m. Mr. N.N. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel for the Assam State Electricity Board, who appeared for the respondents, opposed the admission of the writ petition on the ground that the proper remedy is by way of a suit

(2.) THE petitioner has two adult sons and four daughters of whom three have been married. The youngest daughter Dipti Talukdar, aged about 15 years, was studying in the IX Standard. According to him, at about 5.30 a.m. on 18.3.1991 when she was walking on the road, her leg came in contact with a broken naked electric wire lying on the road and she the d by electrocution. He alleged that on the previous night a tree near his house fell down and the eclectic wire had snapped. Since he did not receive any compensation, he caused a notice dated 10.4.1991 to be sent to the respondents demanding compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. Thereafter, his son wrote to the respondents seeking employment and he was asked to submit an application in proper form, which he did. Since there was no response, he has filed the instant writ petition.

(3.) ONE of the decisions relied upon is Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar where the Supreme Court had to consider the relief to be granted Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in a petition seeking writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner therein was acquitted of a criminal charge in 1968 but was actually released from jail in 1982. He was in illegal detention for over fourteen years. He sought his release and asked for ancillary reliefs like rehabilitation, reimbursement of expenses which he may have to incur for medical treatment and compensation for the illegal incarceration. The Supreme Court awarded in all a sum of Rs. 35,000/- and gave liberty to him to file suit for recovery of appropriate damages from the State and its erring officials. The Supreme Court described the order of compensation as being in the nature of a palliative. Dealing with the question whether the Supreme Court should order compensation, it was observed: