ORDER 28.11.2013 – The widow and minor son of the deceased-Debendranath Paikray have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking compensation for the death of the deceased due to electrocution. It is stated that on 11.12.1996 in the wee hours, the deceased had been to his paddy field for harvesting crops. Because of improper maintenance, the High Tension Electric Line was snapped on the paddy field. He came in contact with the live wire and succumbed to the injuries. It is further stated that the deceased was working as a Mason and due to his untimely death, the family received a serious setback. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, opposite parties have entered appearance. One-Kalikinkar Bhanja, Executive Engineer, Khurda Electric Division, has filed a counter affidavit denying the assertions made in the writ application. The case of the opposite parties is that no record is available in the office of the opposite parties to show that there was an accident on 11.12.1996 at village Olasingh. Further there was no snapping of conductor. It is further stated that FIR and Final Report are not substantive piece of evidence and the same cannot be relied upon by the petitioner for award of compensation. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the opposite parties relied on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and others v. Smt. Sukamani Das and another, AIR 1999 SC 3412 to buttress his submission that the writ application requires adjudication of disputed question of facts and as such the writ Court is not an appropriate forum to adjudicate such disputes. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Sarla Sahu and others v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 2001 Orissa 106. It appears that after the accident occurred FIR was lodged at Jankia Police Station. Thereafter U.D. Case No. 9 of 1996 was registered. After investigation, the police submitted final report stating therein that the cause of death of Debendranath paikray was due to electric shock on 11.12.1996 at 6 A.M. and there was no suspicion of foul play. It appears that after the accident occurred FIR was lodged at Jankia Police Station. Thereafter U.D. Case No. 9 of 1996 was registered. After investigation, the police submitted final report stating therein that the cause of death of Debendranath paikray was due to electric shock on 11.12.1996 at 6 A.M. and there was no suspicion of foul play. It is further revealed that on 10.12.1996 at night, the electric line was snapped and was lying on the paddy field. On the next day morning, when the deceased had been to his paddy field to reap paddy, he came in contact with the same as a result of which he succumbed to the injuries on the spot. One crow, dog and mouse were also dead due to electric shock. Furthermore, the doctor, who conducted the post mortem, opined that the death was due to electric shock. These are the public documents. Except bare denial, no other document has been filed by the opposite parties to show that the death of the deceased was not due to electrocution. The documents relied upon by the petitioners, i.e, FIR and Final Report, vide Annexures 1 and 2, prima facie reveal that the death of Debendranath Paikray was due to shock. It is the bounden duty of the opposite parties to maintain the electric line in a proper manner and for their negligence a young man of 29 years lost his life. In fact the decision relied upon by the opposite parties in the case of Sukamani Das (supra) goes against the opposite parties. As it would be evident from the said decision, ten appeals were filed by the Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. before the apex Court. In the civil appeals arising out of SLP (C) No. 5090 of 1998, the apex Court upheld the award of compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the writ petitioners. In an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot pull down its shutters and in appropriate cases, the High Court can award compensation. Applying the principle of res ipsa loquitor, we direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) to the petitioners within two months from the date of passing of the order towards interim compensation leaving the petitioners to work out their remedies and establish the damages caused to them before the common law forum. Applying the principle of res ipsa loquitor, we direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) to the petitioners within two months from the date of passing of the order towards interim compensation leaving the petitioners to work out their remedies and establish the damages caused to them before the common law forum. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of.