J. P. Singh-J:- Allowing the respondents Claim of compensation for death of their son Romesh Kumar, aged 12 years, a learned Single Judge of this Court, di­rected the State Government and its functionaries in the Power Develop­ment Department to pay them Rs. 2, 05, 000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed on the respondents Writ Petition OWP No. 118/2003, the State has filed this Appeal questioning the judgment and order dated 15.10.2009 of the Writ Court. The respondents Claim for compensation for the death of their son by electrocution was based on the plea that the wooden pole erected by the Power Development De­partment in respondent No. 2s fathers land on which a live electric wire stood tied, tilted reducing the height of the live wire from the ground with which the 12 years old son of the respondents came in contact while he was in the fields along with his maternal grand father. The maternal grand father, who tried to rescue him, too got electro­cuted. The respondents Claim was con­tested by the State Government, inter alia, on the ground that the function­aries of the Power Development Depart­ment, who were prosecuted by the State Government for their negligence in not maintaining the electric wire as a re­sult whereof the respondents son had died, having been acquitted by the Criminal Court, the State Government was not liable to compensate the re­spondents for the death of their son, in that, the death had taken place be­cause of the negligence of the deceased in fiddling with the electric wire. It was additionally urged by the State Govern­ment that the Writ Petition raising dis­puted questions of fact was not main­tainable, in that, the respondents Claim could be considered for its allow­ance only on proof of facts which course was stated impermissible in exercise of jurisdiction of Judicial Review. We have heard learned counsel for the par­ties, considered their submissions and perused the writ records. The appellant's plea that the respondent's son died because of his own negligence, has been dealt with exhaustively by the learned Single Judge giving cogent rea­sons in not accepting the appellant's plea attributing respondent's sons death to his own negligence. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the par­ties, considered their submissions and perused the writ records. The appellant's plea that the respondent's son died because of his own negligence, has been dealt with exhaustively by the learned Single Judge giving cogent rea­sons in not accepting the appellant's plea attributing respondent's sons death to his own negligence. 3. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition relying on the judg­ment delivered by this Court in Mushtaq Ahmed and others v. State of J&K and others reported as AIR 2009 J&K 29 , where while dealing with the issue of strict liability, the Court held as follows:- "14. Any act or omission of the State and its functionaries which takes away the life or otherwise impairs or injures it, would, in my opinion, amount to violation of such persons fundamental right to Life and Liberty flowing from Article 21 of the Consti­tution of India. Engaged in a hazard­ous and inherently dangerous activ­ity of supplying electric energy, which if left uncontrolled would take away life or impair and injure it, the State cannot thus be heard to say that the victim aggrieved by the after effects of such discharge of electric energy, will be disentitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Court to seek com­pensation. Therefore, determination whereof may not require decision on any complicated and disputed ques­tions of fact". 4. The view taken by the learned Single Judge that there was no merit in the appellants plea that the wooden pole had not tilted reducing the height of the live electric wire from the ground level, is well reasoned. Even otherwise, the appellants have not placed any material on records to support their plea that the pole had not tilted reduc­ing the live electric wire tied there­with. Be that as it may, the fact of 12 years old child coming into contact with the electric wire without there being any allegation of his climbing the pole while working in the fields, speaks eloquently of States failure to take req­uisite measures in keeping the elec­tric wire at requisite height so that no human being comes in contact there­with in ordinary course of things. Its failure to prove that all safety mea­sures were taken by it to ensure that the electric energy transmitted by it through the electric wire, did not cause any harm to anyone, renders it liable to compensate the respondents for the loss caused to them because of States omission to ensure that there was con­trolled supply of the electric energy lest it impairs or injures anyone coming in contact therewith. In such cases of strict liability, the onus lies on the authority carrying on the hazardous activity such as dealing in electric en­ergy of high voltage to prove that it had taken all safety measures ensuring controlled transmission of electric en­ergy avoiding any damage or harm to others therewith. The appellants have, however, failed to discharge their onus. The appellants plea that the Writ Court has erred in not taking into consider­ation the Criminal Courts acquittal of the functionaries of the Power Devel­opment Department, who were accused of negligence in maintaining the elec­tric wire, which had resulted into the electrocution of the respondents son, too is found untenable, for, the acquit­tal of those who were otherwise respon­sible, under law, for controlled trans­mission of electric energy, by the Criminal Court, would not absolve the State of its Strict Liability i.e. civil li­ability to compensate those, who suf­fer because of its omission to take req­uisite safety measures to avoid dam­age or loss caused due to the transmis­sion of electric energy. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no other view than the one which the Writ Court has taken in the present case, could have been so taken. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the submissions made by the appellants learned coun­sel questioning the judgment of the Writ Court. 5. This Appeal is, accordingly found without merit, hence dismissed. __________