JUDGMENT 1. - This is a public interest writ application filed by the parents of one Desh Raj @ Madan Lal who received electric shock from the electric wire of 11000 volt electric line going from Maonda to Ranasar. The electric wire was broken in the said line from southern-western pole near village Kotra. A complaint was made by the villagers at 8.30 A.M. on 10th October, 1993 on telephone Nos. 8322 and 2024 to Junion Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Maonda Khurd but no step was taken by the respondents. The petitioners' son Desh Raj @ Madan Lal on that very day was proceeding on the same road and he received an electric shock at 10 A.M. and died immediately. It is alleged that the said accident had taken place because of the negligence of the employee of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. A FIR to this effect was lodged by one Chaina Ram, another son of the petitioners. The S.H.O. thereafter prepared a panchayatnama in respect of the dead body in FIR No. 16/93 under Section 174, Criminal Procedure Code and found inter alia that while the deceased aged about 16 years was proceeding on a cycle, he struck with the torn electric line and got shock and died on the spot. The petitioners as parents sent a notice for demand of justice to the Rajasthan State Electricity Board through Secretary, Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur and also to the Executive Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. It was given out that their son died on the spot at about 10 A.M. On October 10, 1993 due to an electric shock from the electric wire of 11000 K.V. electric line going from Maonda to Ranasar which was broken down from southern-western pole near village Kotra and about which telephonic information was made to the Junior Engineer at about 8.30 A.M. by way of two telephonic calls from two different telephones. It was also stated that there was negligence on the paft of the officials of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board at Neem ka Thana. The son of the petitioners was aged about 16 years and was studying in 9th class in Government Secondary School, Kotra at the time of the accident. He was a very brilliant student and the petitioners as well as the school teachers were having high hopes about him. The son of the petitioners was aged about 16 years and was studying in 9th class in Government Secondary School, Kotra at the time of the accident. He was a very brilliant student and the petitioners as well as the school teachers were having high hopes about him. Immediately after the accident Chaina Ram another son of the petitioners went to the Police Station, Neem ka Thana and lodged a report which had been registered as FIR No. 16/93 under Section 174, Criminal Procedure Code. The investigating officer reached the spot and post-mortem was done by the doctor. Statements of a number of villagers were recorded and the SHO who carried on the investigation submitted his report on 2.12.93 to the S.D.M., Neem ka Thana in which he mentioned that the victim Desh Raj @ Madan Lal died due to electric shock from the wire of 11000 K.V. electric line on the main road while he was proceeding on bicycle at that time. The petitioners requested for compensation to the Rajasthan State Electricity Board but the respondent did not accede to the prayer of any compensation. Since the Rajasthan State Electricity Board was guilty of negligence as due care and caution and timely action was not taken by its employees for maintenance of the electric lines and it was due to negligence or fault on behalf of the officials of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board that they were liable to compensate the parents of the deceased, a compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs was prayed from the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. 2. In the present writ application also the petitioner have prayed for a writ in the nature of a direction upon the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and its Executive Engineer for effecting payment Rs. 10 lacs towards compensation to the petitioners on account of the negligence of the respondents. 3. 10 lacs was prayed from the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. 2. In the present writ application also the petitioner have prayed for a writ in the nature of a direction upon the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and its Executive Engineer for effecting payment Rs. 10 lacs towards compensation to the petitioners on account of the negligence of the respondents. 3. The respondents contested the writ application contending inter alia that the electric wire was not broken in the 11 thousand KV electric line which was going from Maonda to Ranasar on 10th October, 1993 at 8.30 A.M. They denied that any telephonic call was received by the Junior Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Maonda Khurd to this effect at 8.30 A.M. However, it was admitted that at 9.30 A.M. one of the fuses of 11000 KV electric line of Charanwas was blown up with the result that the electric supply was disrupted at 9.35 A.M. However, electric supply was restored thereafter again at 10.40 A.M. the two phases of 33 KV of Charanwas line got fused. Again at 10.45 A.M. the fuses were repaired and the electric supply was restored. At 12.15 P.M. one of the electric wires at 11000 KV feeder Charanwas line near village Kotra was broken and a telephonic message was received but that the line could not be restored until further report. It was further submitted on behalf of the respondents that it was incorrect to say that the son of the petitioners died at 10 A.M. on 10.10.93 due to electric shock since by that time the wire on the pole in both 11000 KV and 33000 KV lines was intact. There was thus no negligence on the part of the respondents or their employees at all. It was however submitted that FIR was lodged on 10.10.93 at Police Station, Neem Ka Thana. Ultimately the case resulted in a final report. Even according to the report of the police dated 2.12.93 it clearly revealed that Deshraj @ Madan Lal died by chance even though it was not proved that there was any negligence on the part of the respondents. It was submitted on the other hand that if there be any contributory negligence it was only of the deceased Deshraj himself for which the respondents could not be blamed or held responsible. It was submitted on the other hand that if there be any contributory negligence it was only of the deceased Deshraj himself for which the respondents could not be blamed or held responsible. The writ petitioners did not submit any evidence in support of the contention raised by them. However, it was submitted that it is a matter of inquiry and the averments made therein relate to the facts which need thorough evidence and thorough corroboration by way of full-fledged inquiry which could not be conducted through writ proceedings. It was submitted further that the respondent Rajasthan State Electricity Board did not receive any request for compensation except that they received a notice dated 23.4.94. It was further averred that the respondents are neither liable for any damages nor any compensation was payable by them. It was further contended that the notice demanding compensation of Rs. 10 lacs was uncalled for an needed no reply from the answering respondents. The respondents were not aware as to whether any inquiry report was submitted by the Police before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer alleging negligence on the part of the answering respondents. As to the potentialities of the boy of 16 years to turn out to be a prospective brilliant student and ultimately becoming a high official was denied to be based merely on conjectures and surmises and merely based on probabilities. The other averments were denied as outbursts of sentiments which really needed no reply. It was denied that the respondents were in any manner guilty of negligence at all as alleged, since immediately on receipt of the information or the intimation that a wire of the electric line has broken down, that the electric supply was immediately disconnected and it was restored only after the line was repaired. If the son of the petitioners died because of his own negligence or fault, they had to blame themselves and the petitioners' son could not be said to have died due to neglignence on the part of the answering respondents. It was reiterated that the son of the petitioners died due to his own fault and atleast due to his contributory negligence in the matter. It was reiterated that the son of the petitioners died due to his own fault and atleast due to his contributory negligence in the matter. It was further averred that the respondents had not committed any error by way of not recommending compensation as the petitioners were not entitled to any compensation from the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and the Executive Engineer of the Board placed at Neem Ka Thanna. It was further submitted that the writ petition itself praying for compensation was not maintainable since the petitioners had alternative remedy by way of civil suit. The assessment of compensation and disputed complicated questions of evidence and detailed inquiry could not be conducted in the writ court. 4. In a rejoinder filed by the writ petitioners the facts stated in the writ petition were merely reiterated with certain more averments regarding the details of the incident and about the liability of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. It was submitted that the police recorded statements under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code of one Gajey Singh son of Chandra Ram, Chaina Ram son of Ram Singh, Hardewa Ram son of Bhunda Ram, Sohan Ram son of Natha Ram, Ram Singh son of Devi Sahai, Ramdhan son of Govind Ram and Devi Sahai son of Mangla Ram. The police after investigation submitted its report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Neem ka Thana on 2.12.93 in which it was found that the son of the petitioners had died due to electric current coming out of broken electric wire. The copies of the statement recorded under the proceedings under Section 174, Criminal Procedure Code were marked as Annexures 8 to 14 respectively. It was further averred that it was wrong to suggest that the police submitted final report in FIR no. 16/93 registered on 10.10.93. The police registered a case under Section 174, Criminal Procedure Code and submitted its report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Neem ka Thana which clearly showed that death of deceased was caused due to electric shock from the wires lying in the public way. It was not death by chance. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board was a public concern and it was the duty of the Board to maintain its electric line in good condition. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board was responsible if there was any harm done or loss caused to the public due to its working. It was not death by chance. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board was a public concern and it was the duty of the Board to maintain its electric line in good condition. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board was responsible if there was any harm done or loss caused to the public due to its working. If any person going through the public way, dies from electric wire lying in the public way which itself showed a positive negligence on the part of the Rajasthan State Electricity. Board Authorities, the conduct of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board itself would make the respondents liable for giving adequate compensation to the petitioners. It was further submitted that there was no need to make any inquiry regarding the fact whether the deceased was a brilliant student or not and whether there were a lot of expectations from him. It was the duty of the respondents to pay compensation and to ask the petitioner on such a sad incident to come forth and take such compensation which may be deemed just and proper. Instead of giving some help the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and its Executive Engineer were trying to escape their liabilities taking a false pretext that the notice was uncalled for. A public body like the Rajasthan State Electricity Board must be held liable or such kind of incident and in the present case also it ought to be held liable for the death caused to the 16 years' old boy for reasons for which the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and its officers were indeed accountable. It was further averred that the respondents were resorting to untruth and were trying to conceal the truth. It has further been given out by the petitioners that this court has awarded compensation in a number of other matters to the sufferers in its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Apparently, when there is an alternative remedy High Court would be slow to interfere and would relegate the parties to a suit for compensation by way of damages. But there are certain guidelines enunciated by some precedents. 5. Apparently, when there is an alternative remedy High Court would be slow to interfere and would relegate the parties to a suit for compensation by way of damages. But there are certain guidelines enunciated by some precedents. In Kumari v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 1992 ACJ 283 , in a case of death of a 6 years' old boy by falling in a ten feet deep uncovered sewerage tank where a writ application was filed claiming compensation and which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that in writ jurisdiction it was not possible to determine as to which of the respondents was negligent, the Supreme Court directed the State of Tamil Nadu to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the mother of the deceased. It was observed in this case that the State of Tamil Nadu may take appropriate proceedings to claim the amount from the authority which was responsible for keeping the tank open. The Supreme Court even allowed interest @ 12% per annum on the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- from a particular date. 6. A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Padma Behari Lal v. Orissa State Electricity Board and other, 1992 ACJ 554 , held in similar application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where a young manged 22 years died by electrocution due to the negligence of the Electricity Board. It was held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to award due compensation in the writ proceedings. It was held inter alia that determination of quantum of compensation would depend upon various factors including the age of the deceased, his earning capacity, expected longevity and the contribution he was making to his family, if any and determination of these facts need evidence. But still then an ad hoc interim compensation of Rs. 30,000/- was allowed to the unfortunate father of the deceased. That was a case where a cyclist came in contact with a live electric wire which got detached from the electric pole and the person was electrocuted and the claimants alleged that the Electricity Board did not exercise due care and caution in maintaining electric wires and that inspite of information about detachment of wire to local sub-station, no action was taken to disconnect the power line. In this case the State Electricity Board contended that the live wire got detached due to stormy weather and it could not be noticed in the darkness. The question arose whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable and whether the said Electricity Board failed to exercise due care and caution and was negligent. It was however held in this case that the burden was on the Electricity Board to establish that the accident occurred due to some other cause than its negligence. It was held following the decision in Thressia v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 1987 ACJ 88 (Kerala) that the Electricity Board was liable for compensation. In the Orissa decision however reliance was placed upon Jaram Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988 ACJ 1083 (HP) where an ad hoc interim compensation of Rs. 30,000/- was awarded. This court finds to its amazement that despite the serious complaint no action appears to have been taken by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board to investigate and find out the true cause of the electric line breaking away. It could not he denied that the son of the petitioners who was a victim of the circumstances died due to his cycle coming in contact with a live electric wire which got detached from an electric pole and there was electocution on the road itself. We find prima facie evidence that the Electricity Board neglected its duty finding to act with due care and caution in maintaining the electric line and despite informations about the detachment which was given by two telephonic messages, no serious action was taken to disconnect the power line and to make prompt arrangements. Even though this Court does not venture to make any assessment of compensation on account of this unfortunate death caused to the son of the petitioners, this Court thinks that adhoc compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) would be just and proper which would be paid by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board to the petitioners with liberty being granted to the petitioners to file an appropriate case of damages by the way of compensation against the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. 7. Let there be a writ in the nature of mandamus to this limited extent only directing the Rajasthan State Electricity Board to pay an ad hoc compensation of Rs. 7. Let there be a writ in the nature of mandamus to this limited extent only directing the Rajasthan State Electricity Board to pay an ad hoc compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioners within a period of three months, in the light of the judicial precedents that I have discussed above. The writ application stands allowed to this extent only.Petition partly allowed. *******