JUDGMENT Heard J.C. to Sri R.S.Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and J.C. to Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent Electricity Board. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this case is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 3. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction to the concerned authorities of the respondents for grant of compensation to the petitioner on the death of her husband allegedly caused due to electrocution from the loosely hanging live electric cable of the respondents. 4. The case of the petitioner is that on 12.06.2002 about 4 A.M., the petitioner’s husband had accidentally come in contact with a loosely hanging 440 volt live electric cable which was hanging on the ground after having snapped overhead. As a result, he suffered death. A U.D. case was registered at the police station on 12.06.2002. The postmortem report had confirmed that the death was on account of electrocution. It is further submitted that the petitioner happens to be the surviving widow of the deceased and she has three daughters and one son and she is a B.P.L. Card holder. The petitioner had filed her letter of request before the Executive Engineer, Electricity Supply Division, Chaibasa for appropriate compensation vide her letter dated 26.06.2002 but no action has been taken by the respondent authorities and she has been running from pillar to post. She has filed a series of representations, the last being on 01.08.2008 but to no avail. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would explain that as would be apparent from the facts of the case itself, the death of the deceased was on account of the negligence on the part of the respondent authorities since it was their responsibility to maintain the electric lines with all precautionary safety measures. 6. Relying upon the judgements of the Supreme Court in the case of Parvati Devi and Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Ors. Reported in 2000(3) SCC 754 and in the case of M.P. Electricity Board Vs.Shail Kumari & Ors. 2002 (2) SCC 162 , learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have to bear the responsibility of paying compensation to the petitioner for the premature death of her husband which had occurred on account of the abject negligence of the respondents. 7. 2002 (2) SCC 162 , learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have to bear the responsibility of paying compensation to the petitioner for the premature death of her husband which had occurred on account of the abject negligence of the respondents. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents, by referring to the statements contained in the counter affidavit, would submit that the occurrence had taken place on 12.06.2002 and even though a U.D. case was registered and the police had investigated the matter but none of the officers of Electricity Board were made accused in the case and it is thereby confirmed that the investigation did not find any lapses or negligence on the part of the officers of the Electricity Board. It is further submitted that even otherwise, there being inordinate delay in filing this writ application, it is liable to the dismissed. 9. The stand taken by the respondents appears to be misleading and not tenable. Admittedly, a U.D. case was registered in respect of the death of the deceased husband of the petitioner and postmortem report had also confirmed that the death was on account of electrocution. The cause and the manner in which the deceased had suffered death, prima facie points out that the high voltage electric wire which had apparently snapped overhead was left hanging on the ground and the deceased had accidentally come in contact with the same. These are certain admitted facts which the petitioner has brought on record supported by the postmortem report and by the result of the investigation in the U.D. case. These facts have not been controverted by the respondents in their counter affidavit. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the matter is remitted back to the Secretary of the respondent Electricity Board to consider the petitioner’s claim in the light of the admitted facts and also in the light of the judgements cited by the petitioner and to take appropriate decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order and effectively communicate such decision to the petitioner. The petitioner in her turn, is directed to file a representation before the Secretary of the Board along with a copy of this order stating the grounds of her claim and the available documents in support of the grounds and within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation, the Secretary of the Board shall record his decision on the same in the manner stated above. In the event, the Secretary of the respondent Board finds reason to accept the petitioner’s claim and to award compensation, then such amount as may be assessed, shall be paid to the petitioner within one month from the date of decision taken by him. With these observations, this application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondent Board.