Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1396 (RAJ)

Antar Kanwar v. R. S. E. B. , Jaipur

2009-05-21

GOVIND MATHUR, N.P.GUPTA

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon'ble GUPTA, J.— This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1.10.2000, dismissing the writ petition on the ground of being not maintainable in view of the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. vs. Smt.Sukamani Das reported in AIR 1999 SC 3412 and Tamilnadu Electricity Board vs. Sumathi & Ors. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1603 , as the proper remedy is civil suit in torts. 2. The necessary facts are that on 23.10.1998 the petitioners filed the present writ petition alleging inter-alia that on 20.7.1997 the deceased Bhanwar Singh was looking after the crops of cotton at his well, which was electrified and he was found lying unconscious at 4 PM, on that day, near the electricity pole by his nephew. With this basic fact, other facts have also been pleaded, and the writ petition has been filed for a direction to pay adequate and fair compensation, amount whereof may be determined by this Court. 3. Reply to the writ petition has been filed contending inter-alia that the petitioners have alternative remedy under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act by way of filing civil suit, and that the writ involved the disputed questions of facts. Then giving parawise reply , the factual averments made in the writ petition had also been controverted. 4. We have gone through the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, as considered by learned Single Judge. True it is that in both the judgments, it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that in such matters, writ petition would not lie. However, it is significant to note that in both those cases, High Court had awarded compensation and the amount of compensation awarded had already been paid to the claimants, and in both the cases, Hon'ble the Supreme Court had further directed that the amount paid to the claimant shall not be recovered back, obviously with the result that though laying down the law, the fact situation that remained was that the claimants were paid the compensation, in other words, they were not left high and dry. 5. 5. As against this, in the present case, since the learned Single Judge has already dismissed the writ petition, as noticed above, the accident being of July 1997, and the writ petition having been filed immediately in October 1998, which remained pending for all these years before this Court, if the petition is simply dismissed, the claimants would be left without any remedy, which would be an utter travesty of justice if the averments of the claimants are correct. 6. Considering this totality of circumstances, in our view, we should better exercise our powers under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, and direct return of the petition to the petitioners for presentation to the proper Court, which in the present case is the additional District Judge, Sojat. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in the manner that the original writ petition is directed to be returned to the petitioners for presentation to proper Court, being Addl. District Judge, Sojat. The Registry is directed to return the original writ petition along with the annexures, so also the original reply along with the annexures forthwith. 8. The writ petition shall be treated to be the plaint and the reply filed to the writ petition may be taken to be treated as the written-statement. Since the pleadings are in English, the parties will be at liberty to file Hindi translation thereof. For the purpose of limitation, the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted on 23.10.1998, on which date the writ was filed, provided the appellant presents the same before the trial Court on or before 1.7.2009. 9. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.