PHATIK CH. TALUKDAR Vs. ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the father of one Pranab Kumar Talukdar, who died, in an incident of electrocution which occurred on 17/7/82 in the village Raipur of Barpeta district of the State of Assam. The deceased at the time of his death, was 15 years in age and had completed, his High School Leaving Certificate examination, the results of which were announced latter, showing the deceased to have been passed in 2nd division. Alleging and attributing negligence on the part of the Board for the death of his son, the instant writ petition has been filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and praying for award of adequate monetary compensation.

(2.) THIS Court by order dated 9/4/01, directed the Sr. Electrical Inspector, Govt. of Assam, to make an enquiry with Regard to the incident in question and submit a report. The said enquiry had since been completed and a report of the enquiry dated 22/11/01 has been placed on record.

(3.) THOUGH the law of limitation would not strictly apply to writ proceedings it must be accepted that an affected period should invoke the jurisdiction of the writ Court at the earliest opportunity. In the instant case, the writ petitioner has averred in the different paragraphs of the writ petition that right from the year 1982, he had been continuously submitting representation to the authorities of the Board to provide him necessary relief and succour and the Board not having responded to the said requests, the instant writ petitioner has been filed. Copies of the representations filed by the writ petitioner, from time to time, have also been brought on record. While is correct that the writ petitioner should have approached this Court earlier, yet having regard to the facts and circumstances involved and the nature of the relief claimed, I do not consider that the ends of justice require that the writ petition should be foreclosed on the ground of delay. The several case laws which the learned Standing Counsel tried to rely upon being with regard to claims for promotion or seniority where delay has led to accrual of third party rights, the Court did not consider it necessary to burden the present order by referring to any of the said decisions. No third party rights having accrued for the present case which is likely to be affected by an adjudication of the present case on merits, the Court has considered it proper not to refuse suet adjudication to the writ petitioner.