(Oral) Communication of Superintend­ing Engineer, Electric Inspection Wing, J&K, Jammu bearing No. E I C J/305-07 dated 13.06.2008 addressed to the Commissioner-Secretary to Govt., Power Development Department, J&K, Jammu placed on the writ record along-with CMP No. 42/2009 coupled with the pleadings of the parties would reveal that on 05.05.2005 the petitioner suf­fered electric shock when he came in contact with live 33 KV transmission line at Jakhani Bye Pass. The peti­tioner was shifted to S. K. Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS), Soura and in terms of the certificate issued by the Senior Resident, Plastic Surgery, SKIMS, Srinagar dated 12.11.2005 the petitioner was operated upon on 09.05.2005 and amputation of gangre­nous mid arm was performed and on 16.05.2005 he was again operated upon and revised amputation of the same limb was done and petitioner was dis­charged from the Institute on 18.05.2005. 2. This petition is filed with the prayer that respondents be directed to pay compensation to the petitioner as he has suffered injuries and amputa­tion of his arm because of the careless and negligent act of the respondents. 3. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is pleaded that by the dint of his hard work he had risen to the position of Class D&E Contractor and had also Orchard of walnut and apple trees and his monthly income was " 25.000/-. In the petition, the age of the petitioner is recorded as 48 years in the year 2007. It is claimed by the petitioner that he has suffered 90% disability and has prayed for direc­tion upon the respondents for payment of compensation to the tune of" 24.00 lac. The petitioner has also sought medical expenses and other inciden­tal charges at "3.00 lac. Besides this, the petitioner has also prayed for pay­ment of compensation on other ac­counts as well. 4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submitted that these au­thorities had undertaken construction of road and the traffic movement was not permitted on the said road. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no negligence on the part of the said respondents inasmuch as the peti­tioner himself ventured along-with his vehicle on the said road. Learned coun­sel also submitted that since the peti­tioner admittedly has suffered burn injuries because of the overhead 33 KV transmission line, so they cannot be directed to pay compensation to the petitioner. 5. Mr. Learned coun­sel also submitted that since the peti­tioner admittedly has suffered burn injuries because of the overhead 33 KV transmission line, so they cannot be directed to pay compensation to the petitioner. 5. Mr. Chashoo, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for re­spondents 5 to 12, while referring to the various communications placed on record submitted that at the time of laying of wire all precautions were taken and there was total compliance of the Electricity Act of 1997. Learned counsel submitted that because of the construction of road by the respondents 1 to 4 the ground clearance in respect of the transmission line got reduced which resulted in causing burn inju­ries to the petitioner. Learned coun­sel, accordingly, submitted that it is the negligence of respondents 1 to 4 and it is the said authorities which have to be saddled with the liability of paying compensation to the petitioner. 6. It is not in dispute that laying of electric wire is a hazardous activity. The concerned authorities have to strictly comply with the parameters of law while laying the overhead electric wires. The State and its authorities in the Power Development Department have to exhibit utmost care and cau­tion in laying the overhead electric wires so as to ensure that human life is not exposed to any kind of risk. The authorities of the Power Development Department not only in various com­munications but in the reply affidavit have also admitted that the petitioner suffered electric shock and consequent injuries as he came in touch with the live overhead electric wire. The said authorities have further taken the stand that the construction activities undertaken by respondents 1 to 4 re­duced the ground clearance which is otherwise mandatory in terms of Elec­tricity Act of 1997 and the Rules made there-under and because of the negli­gent act on the part of respondents 1 to 4 petitioner suffered electric shock and injuries which resulted in the ampu­tation of his arm. 7. The State and its authorities can­not be permitted to pass on the buck exclusively to respondents 1 to 4 inas­much as it was their duty to ensure that because of the road construction activity undertaken by respondents 1 to 4 the ground clearance in respect of 33 KV transmission line is not reduced. 7. The State and its authorities can­not be permitted to pass on the buck exclusively to respondents 1 to 4 inas­much as it was their duty to ensure that because of the road construction activity undertaken by respondents 1 to 4 the ground clearance in respect of 33 KV transmission line is not reduced. The State and its authorities have ex­hibited utmost carelessness and neg­ligence in not ensuring that the ground clearance of 33 KV transmission line is not reduced in any manner whatso­ever. They had to remain vigilant when road construction was started. Since it is admitted that the ground clearance of the overhead line got reduced because of construction of road the re­spondents 5 to 12 cannot be absolved of their liability to pay compensation to the petitioner. The respondents 1 to 4 and 5 to 12 would be severally and jointly liable to pay compensation to the petitioner as because of the road construction the ground clearance in respect of overhead 33 KV transmis­sion line got reduced. It was the duty of respondents 1 to 4 to ensure that ground clearance of the overhead 33 KV transmission line does not get reduced and while undertaking road construc­tion they were duty bound to seek ad­vice from the authorities of the Power Development Department and Power Development Department was under statutory obligation to take utmost care and caution. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circum­stances of this case, both the authori­ties, the State and Union of India, have acted in gross negligence and have ex­hibited carelessness. Article 21 of the Constitution of India which deals with life in its all connotations would defi­nitely fasten liability upon the respon­dents to pay compensation to the peti­tioner. 9. The petitioner at the time of acci­dent was 46 years of age because at the time of filing of the writ petition he has given his age as 48 years which is not denied or disputed. The earning capac­ity of the petitioner has been consid­erably affected. The FIR registered at Police Station, Udhampur would also certify the fact that the petitioner suf­fered electric shock and consequent injuries because of the live 33 KV trans­mission line. 10. The respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner for not only affecting his livelihood but also for reimbursing the medical expenses he has incurred. The FIR registered at Police Station, Udhampur would also certify the fact that the petitioner suf­fered electric shock and consequent injuries because of the live 33 KV trans­mission line. 10. The respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner for not only affecting his livelihood but also for reimbursing the medical expenses he has incurred. The respondents would also be liable to pay compensa­tion to the petitioner for the loss of his limb and the ordeal he has undergone because of the electric shock he sustained and the consequent amputation of his right arm. 11. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to direct the respondents to pay lump sum compensation of "10.00 lacs (ten lacs) to the petitioner. The respondents 1 to 4 and 5 to 12 are held liable to pay compensation in equal shares, viz., 5.00 lacs (five lacs) each. The compen­sation be paid to the petitioner within two weeks from today. In case compen­sation is not paid within the aforemen­tioned period then the petitioner would be entitled to receive interest @ 12% per annum on the compensation amount till such time compensation is paid to him. 12. The writ petition along-with con­nected CMP's is disposed of in the above terms. __________