JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 7.12.2007 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 297 (SH) of 2003. By this impugned judgment, the learned single Judge has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lacs) to the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 on account of her son sustaining burn injuries due to electrocution. While awarding the compensation, the learned single Judge apportioned the compensation between the Department of Urban Affairs, State of Meghalaya and Meghalaya State Electricity Board at equal ratio. So far as the State Department is concerned, it has accepted the award and the judgment has not been assailed. However, the Electricity Board is aggrieved by the apportionment of the compensation. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the Meghalaya State Electricity Board (briefly MESEB). 2. We have heard Shri K.S. Kynjing, learned senior counsel for the appellant. The principal respondent No.1 writ petitioner was represented by Shri S. Chakravarty, learned Counsel, whereas the State-respondents were represented by Shri N.D. Chullai, learned senior Government Advocate. 3. The sole question raised in this writ appeal is as to whether MESEB is liable to pay any part of the compensation on the doctrine of strict liability? According to the learned senior counsel for the appellant, the function of the Electricity Board is only to generate, transmit and distribute power and it cannot be held liable for any incident or accident that may happen within there being any fault in the transmission or the power line. In support of this submission, the learned senior counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of M.P. Electricity Board vs. Shail Kumar reported in (2002) 1 SCR 164 and the judgment rendered in the case of W.B. State Electricity Board vs. Sachin Banerjee reported in AIR 2000 SC 3629 . The learned senior counsel also pressed into service the judgment of Gauhati High Court given in the case of State of Manipur vs. Huriliung Kamel reported in. 4. Per contra, Shri S. Chakravarty, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that, under Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is the duty of the power generating company to keep its overhead transmission line free from any interruption. 4. Per contra, Shri S. Chakravarty, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that, under Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is the duty of the power generating company to keep its overhead transmission line free from any interruption. According to the learned Counsel, the overhead power line having come into close proximity of the gallery in the field, the Electricity Board ought to have raised objection about the structure and had this step been taken by the Electricity Board, the incident of electrocution would not have taken place. 5. Identical submissions were made by Shri N.D. Chullai, learned senior Government Advocate that since the overhead power line was drawn and maintained by the Electricity Board, it is bound to share the liability. 6. To understand the legal question, it is necessary to look at the facts of the case, which are summarized below: The incident took place on 6.10.1999 at about 5 p.m. At the relevant point of time, children were playing in a park situated at Kharmalki locality in Malki, Shillong. Suddenly, the victim and one of his friends climbed the gallery in search of their ball unmindful of the high tension electric wire passing over the gallery. Suddenly, the son of respondent No. 1 came in contact with live wires and got injured. As a result of the electrocution the right arm of the victim had to be amputated. Under such circumstances, the learned single Judge awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lacs). Since the gallery in the park/field was constructed without necessary permission, the State Department was also held vicariously liable. 7. Before deciding the writ petition, the learned single Judge thought it proper to make an inquiry on factual aspects through the District Judge. After detailed inquiry, the District Judge came to the following conclusion: On scanning of deposition of different P.Ws. as well as R.Ws it is evident and apparent that the victim Sam Kupar Mawthoh came into contact with high tension electrical wire on 6-10-1999 when he climbed and reached the top of the sitting gallery which was under construction at Children's Park, Kharmalki. On looking to Mt. Ext. as well as R.Ws it is evident and apparent that the victim Sam Kupar Mawthoh came into contact with high tension electrical wire on 6-10-1999 when he climbed and reached the top of the sitting gallery which was under construction at Children's Park, Kharmalki. On looking to Mt. Ext. 1 it is apparent that the electrical wire was passing over the gallery and the distance between the electrical wire and the top of the gallery was not much even R.W. No. 8 also admitted that the distance between the top of the gallery and the electrical wire was about 3 (three) feet which also reflect and found support from different witnesses. From the deposition of different witnesses it is also clear that no signboard has been displayed indicating the danger or preventing entrance of public in the place of construction. It is also strange and unbelievable how a Headman or Durbar of the locality had no knowledge about the construction of the said gallery and why no steps have been taken from the Durbar as well as Contractors and Municipal authority to shift the high tension wire prior to construction of the said gallery. And from the deposition of R.W. No. 1 it appears that till date no officer has been entrusted by MESEB to look after the public safety, which I feel is not proper and MESEB should take step to see to the safety of the public in general and children in particular. From the deposition it is evident that no formal permission has been obtained from the concerned authority through some officials of Municipality accompanied by Urban Officials visited the site of construction and drew the line, and also it is an admitted fact that while drawing the line for construction Municipal Officials were aware about the presence of live high tension wire even though no step has been taken to remove the said wire from the place of construction nor Contractors who constructed the gallery had taken sufficient step to ensure the public safety. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, had the local Durbar, Shillong Municipal authority and the Contractors taken steps and remained vigilant keeping in mind the public safety in general such incident or accident could have been aborted. 8. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, had the local Durbar, Shillong Municipal authority and the Contractors taken steps and remained vigilant keeping in mind the public safety in general such incident or accident could have been aborted. 8. The plea of the Urban Affairs Department to absolve it from the liability to pay compensation was rejected by the learned single Judge on the ground that, while according financial and technical sanction for construction of the gallery, the concerned Government Department must have examined the pros and cons of the construction of the gallery inside the Children's Park in accordance with law. The learned single Judge has further noted that the site plan was drawn by the Engineers both from the Shillong Municipal Board and Urban Affairs Department. Since the Municipal Board is under the administrative control of the Urban Affairs Department, the liability was not further apportioned with the Municipal Board. At the same time, the liability upon the Electricity Board has been fastened with the following reasons: Secondly, the Meghalaya State Electricity Board cannot disown its liability to pay compensation as it is their High Tension wire which passed through over a children Park and that they cannot deny knowledge of the construction of the gallery which could have possibly taken not less than six months and non-appointment of the Public Safety Officer is also another factor which cannot be lost sight of. 9. In the case of M.P. Electricity Board (2002) 1 SCR 164 (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the liability of the State and more particularly that of Electricity Boards to pay damages on the principle of strict liability. At the same time, their Lordships have observed that there are certain exceptions to the aforesaid doctrine. The relevant paragraphs laying down the law are reproduced below for ready reference: 7. It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy of his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps. 8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as strict liability. It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taken precautions. 10. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taken precautions. 10. There are seven exceptions formulated by means of case law to the doctrine of strict liability. It is unnecessary to enumerate those exceptions barring one which is this. "Act of stranger i.e. if the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger, the rule does not apply. 10. The aforesaid observations of the Apex Court have been reproduced only to emphasise the legal position that the State and/or Electricity Board cannot escape the liability of paying compensation to the victims under the law of torts for the inactions or omissions which lead to loss of human life or causing any physical harm to any person. In the aforesaid cited case, the victim was returning home from a factory on a bicycle during night hours. Suddenly, the bicycle came in contact with a live wire which was lying on the road unattended. Under such circumstances, the liability fastened upon the Electricity Board was upheld. The judgment of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Hurilung Kamei, AIR 2007 (Gau) 1925 (supra) has also been rendered relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court. 11. In the case of Sachin Banerjee AIR 2000 SC 3629 (supra), the Electricity Board challenged the vicarious liability on the ground that the incident took place due to illegal hooking of electricity and not due to any fault or negligence on the part of the Electricity Board. Under such circumstances, the Electricity Board was exonerated from its liability. The entire order of the Apex Court is reproduced below: Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that an ex gratia payment of Rs. 50,000/- by them to the heirs of each of the deceased persons is not being objected to by the petitioners. The only grievance of the petitioners relates to an observation in the impugned judgment that two victims had died because of the negligence of the petitioners State Electricity Board. 50,000/- by them to the heirs of each of the deceased persons is not being objected to by the petitioners. The only grievance of the petitioners relates to an observation in the impugned judgment that two victims had died because of the negligence of the petitioners State Electricity Board. Looking to the fact that the two victims were electrocuted because of an illegal hooking for the purpose of theft of electricity, the petitioners cannot be held guilty of negligence although they may have stated that there is a need for conducting de-hooking raids more frequently. 2. Looking to the circumstances although the impugned order is maintained, the observation that the two victims had died because of the negligence of the State Electricity Board is deleted from the order. 3. With these observations, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed. 12. Coming to the case at hand, we find that the gallery in the Children's Park was constructed on being sponsored by the State Government Department. The report of the District Judge clearly mentions that the concerned authority had not obtained any formal permission from the concerned department. Not only that, the report reveals that though some officials of the Municipal Board and Urban Affairs Department had visited the site of construction, they did not raise any objection for raising the height of the gallery which was very close to the over-head power line. Nowhere in the fact finding report of the District Judge it has been mentioned that the Electricity Board was not aware of the construction of the gallery nor any such plea was taken by the State in writ petition. On the other hand, the Urban Affairs Department admitted the fact that the gallery was constructed by their department. The relevant admissions made by the said respondents in their affidavit filed in the writ petition are also reproduced below: 5. That in reply to the statements made in paragraph 4 of the petition, the deponent say that in so far as the Urban Affairs Department is concerned, the construction of the children park at Kharmalki was taken up by the Department on the request of the Malki Locality Durbar for creating a recreational facility. The land on which the park was developed belongs to the Local Durbar and after construction of the park, the same was handed over to the locality. The land on which the park was developed belongs to the Local Durbar and after construction of the park, the same was handed over to the locality. The management and maintenance of the park is also the responsibility of the Local Durbar. 13. From the aforesaid facts, it becomes crystal clear that the appellant-MESEB were not aware of the height of the gallery nor was it brought to their notice at any point of time. Section 68 of the Electricity Act has no application inasmuch as it requires licensee of power transmission to approach the Appropriate Government to remove any tree, structure or object if it interrupts, interferes or is likely to interrupt or interfere with the conveyance or transmission of electricity or the accessibility of any works. Since the raising of the gallery to a certain height did not interrupt the transmission of electricity, the Electricity Board had no reason to visit the Children Park to ascertain about the construction of the gallery. 14. From the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the MESEB ought not to have been fastened with any part of the liability just on the presumption that they cannot deny knowledge of the construction of the gallery. In other words, we are of the view that the Rule of Exception to the doctrine of strict liability as discussed in the case of M.P. Electricity Board (2002) 1 SCR 164 (supra), by the Apex Court comes to the rescue of MESEB. Hence, the finding rendered by the learned single Judge, while fastening one part of the liability upon MESEB is neither based on any evidence nor has the support of law. Hence, we hold that it is a case of interference and we do so accordingly. In our opinion, the entire liability to pay compensation is upon the Department of Urban Affairs. 15. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. 16. The impugned judgment and order is modified to the extent that the entire compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lacs) with interest at the rate of 7½% per annum, as awarded by the learned single Judge, shall be payable by the respondent No. 3. Appeal allowed.