ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board. 2. Petitioner Kedar Nath Sharma filed a writ application for payment of compensation of rupees ten lacs due to death of his son Gautam coming in contact with a live wire of 11000 Volt belonging to the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board at village Safiabad, P.S. Naya Ram Nagar Safiabad in the district of Munger. He is also claiming compassionate appointment under the Board. 3. According to the petitioner his son Gautam Kumar Sharma was aged 26 years. After passing plus 2 examination from Central Board of Secondary Education he was doing Post Graduation in Diploma course in Human Rights at the Indian Institute of Human Rights, New Delhi. He has been on a visit to his home when on the ill fated day i.e. on 1.10.2003 at about 8.00 a.m. 11000 K.V.A. over head wire snapped. He came in contact with the said wire and died instantaneously. A first information report was lodged with the nearest police station which was registered as Naya Ram Nagar Safiabad P.S. Case No. 100/2003. Besides investigation made by the police, some kind of departmental enquiry was also carried out by the authorities of the Bihar State Electricity Board. Questions and answers put to the various authorities including the petitioner were reduced in writing and forms part of the counter affidavit as Annexures B & C series. 4. Stand of the learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board is that the accident happened not due to any negligence on the part of the respondents but because of sudden snapping of the insulator pin over which the department has no control. Liability, if at all, against the respondents would arise if negligence is fully and finally established on their part. There are not enough or adequate material to pin down the Board with any tangible or substantial compensation which the petitioner is looking for. 5. In addition to the above stand some technical questions and defence have also been raised that these are matters which are required to be investigated by the Electrical Inspector Engineer. He is the only person who has expertise to investigate and come out with a finding as provided under section 33 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. 5. In addition to the above stand some technical questions and defence have also been raised that these are matters which are required to be investigated by the Electrical Inspector Engineer. He is the only person who has expertise to investigate and come out with a finding as provided under section 33 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. This writ application, therefore, ought not to be entertained at this stage without the formality as provided under the statute is completed. In fact, the writ could be to preempt such an enquiry by the competent authority. 6. In addition to that reliance has also been placed upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of S.D.O. Grid Corporation of Orissa and others Vs. Timudu Oram reported in (2005) 6 SCC, 156 for the proposition that in matters of action on Tort or negligence and claim for compensation, High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has limited jurisdiction, as evidence would be required to be taken and brought with regard to negligence having been established against the concerned respondents. 7. Learned counsel representing the petitioner rebuts the stand of the Bihar State Electricity Board and submits that where there is loss of life, a citizen is entitled to compensation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and a public body or authority like Electricity Board has an obligation to pay compensation. The facts speak for itself and hyper technicality will not come in the way of the Electricity Board in getting itself absolved of the liability to pay compensation. Prima facie, from perusal of annexures B & C series annexed with the counter affidavit of the Board, a few salient features do emerge. No doubt, even if their stand is accepted that the wire snapped because of snapping or breaking of the Insulator Pin but the inherent safety measure which the Electricity Board is required to take to prevent any untoward incident due to such contingency was not there. There has to be proper earthing. There has to be proper provision of guard wires under the high tension lines; especially if it runs through inhabited areas and in addition to that as a safety measure the so called O.C.B. guard installed is supposed to trip and shut down the line, which did not happen. 8. There has to be proper earthing. There has to be proper provision of guard wires under the high tension lines; especially if it runs through inhabited areas and in addition to that as a safety measure the so called O.C.B. guard installed is supposed to trip and shut down the line, which did not happen. 8. A perusal of annexure-B or C does not indicate that any of the safety measures were in place or if in place were functional to prevent loss of life. Answer given to the non tripping of O.C. B. is that it should have tripped but it did not trip, as if that absolves the respondents by a simple answer to a complex issue. So far as providing guard wires are concerned, there is a blanket statement that what about the place where the incident happened, there is no safety guard in place in most of the lines of Munger and Jamalpur town. If resource is supposed to be a defence put up by the respondents, then this Court has serious reservation whether lack of resource can be a defence when human life has been imperiled in such a manner. 9. In addition to above there is yet another significant aspect. Can limited or lack of resource absolve the respondent Board from taking all such steps which are required to be taken under the Electricity Rules and the Act? Since they are statutory provisions and are binding upon the respondents, in the opinion of this Court, a duty is cast statutorily upon the Board to maintain certain safety standards and they have an obligation to do so. They cannot hide under the pretext of limited resource availability or otherwise. 10. It is not that the High Court is precluded or barred from entertaining such a writ application, when facts speak for themselves. No doubt, a young life has been snuffed out because of the person coming in contact with high tension wire which snapped. Family had expectations out of him because he was pursuing his studies in Delhi at the Post Graduate level which would have entitled him to some decent employment and source of income for the family. Therefore, this is not one of those cases which could be thrown out on the ground that detailed evidence and proof of negligence has to be established through and through. 11. Therefore, this is not one of those cases which could be thrown out on the ground that detailed evidence and proof of negligence has to be established through and through. 11. Prima facie, the Court is of the opinion that there has been some negligence on the part of the Bihar State Electricity Board and in terms of their own circular which has been annexed as Annexure-E to the counter affidavit, they have rightly been directed to make an ad hoc payment of Rs.50,000/- by a Bench of this Court earlier in its order dated 30.01.2012 passed in this regard and which I am informed has not been paid. It should be paid within a period of four weeks from today. 12. So far as additional compensation is concerned, petitioner will have to take recourse to law as observed by the Supreme Court because the final quantification cannot be made by the High Court in a summary proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Claim or prayer for compassionate appointment, however, is rejected on the ground that there is no provision or policy in place for such compassionate appointment due to death of a person who is not a government servant. 13. This writ application, therefore, stands allowed to the extent indicated above.