Judgment :- 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the loss of life of the petitioner’s husband due to electrocution caused by the negligent act of the respondents in maintaining the electric wire and pole. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 3. The husband of the writ petitioner Late Subramani while he was causing his sheep to grace in the agricultural land owned by one Baskar at Perumpakkam, died due to electrocution on 3.6.2004. According to the petitioner, the electric wire was lying on the land without proper maintenance and therefore, it is due to the negligent conduct of the respondent the electrocution has taken place. She has lodged a police complaint in B6, Muppedu Police Station, Tiruvallur District and a case was registered. At the time of death of the deceased, he was 40 years and he died by electrocution leaving behind him, the petitioner being his wife, a son and a daughter, apart from his mother. According to the petitioner, her husband was working as a Daily Wager under the management of Sri Periyandavar Cement Works, Tiruvallur and was earning Rs.220/-per day. Due to the death of the petitioner’s husband, the petitioner’s family was left in lurch since the breadwinner of the family died due to electrocution because of the non-maintenance of electric wire by the second respondent Board. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, even though the second respondent has stated that the writ petition is not maintainable since it involves disputed questions of fact, it is specifically admitted that the petitioner’s husband was electrocuted by LT line falling on the ground stating that the same is due to heavy wind and rain on 3.6.2004. According to the second respondent, before the heavy wind and rain, the L.T.line and the transformer were maintained properly and the line wire has fallen on the ground only due to the natural calamity and therefore, it is due to the “Act of God” the accident took place and not by negligence on the part of the respondents. 5. (i)Similar issue was decided by me in W.P.No.12712 of 2003 dated 30.11.3011 (S.DHANALAKSHMI V. THE CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, 800, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI 2 AND ANOTHER) based on hierarchy of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 5. (i)Similar issue was decided by me in W.P.No.12712 of 2003 dated 30.11.3011 (S.DHANALAKSHMI V. THE CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, 800, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI 2 AND ANOTHER) based on hierarchy of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. (ii) In fact, the Apex Court in NOTH BROS.EXIM INTERNATIONAL LTD., V. BEST ROADWAYS LTD., ( 2000 (4) SCC 553 ), while considering the power of this Court under Article 226 even though has stated that when disputed questions of fact are involved the compensation cannot be granted, but nevertheless held that the same cannot be understood as laying a law that in every case of tortious liability recourse must be had to a suit. Where there is negligence on the face of it and infringement of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, there is no bar for the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant compensation. (iii)In D.MATSA GANDHA.D. V. TAMIL NADU SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD, reported in 2000 (III) CTC page 24, P.SATHASIVAM,J. (as His Lordship then was) has held that in cases where there is denial of tortious liability, then the writ petition cannot be maintained. But when the negligence, per se, is visible, the same has to be construed as violation of right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant compensation. Applying the yardstick laid down by the Supreme Court in hierarchy of cases, the High Court has granted compensation. (iv)On the facts of the present case the facts are certainly not in dispute. The only reason given by the respondent Board is “Act of God” and admittedly, the electric wire has fallen, may be due to the wind and rain. But, nevertheless, it remains the duty of the Electricity Board to maintain the electric supply and lines. The non-maintenance,per se, in my considered view, violates the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Taking note of the fact that the petitioners husband was employed as a Daily Wager and died leaving behind him, his mother, wife and two children, the compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs only) cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. 6. Taking note of the fact that the petitioners husband was employed as a Daily Wager and died leaving behind him, his mother, wife and two children, the compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs only) cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. 6. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs only), with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.