ORDER Seeking quashing of order dated 22.04.2009 and 29.06.2009, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 29.07.2004 the husband of the petitioner came in contact with the live electric wire of 11,000 Volt due to which he suffered severe burn injuries and died. The petitioner moved the respondent-Jharkhand State Electricity Board seeking compensation however, in view of the report of the Committee constituted by the Board, vide order dated 25.09.2006, the petitioner was denied compensation and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 731 of 2005. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 30.04.2009 directing the respondent-Board to take appropriate decision within a period of two months. The matter was again re examined by the Committee which submitted its report on 29.09.2009 declining the application of the petitioner. 3. Mr. M.A. Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the report prepared by the Committee constituted by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board appears to be a paper work. No one from the locality has been examined before preparing the report. The current photographs of the house of one Sheo Balak Pandit would indicate that the electric wire is still hanging over the roof of his house. This case is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in “Madhuri Kumari Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.”, reported in 2003 (2) JCR 444 (Jhr). 4. Per contra, Mr. Rupesh Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Jharkhand State Electricity Board submits that the Committee constituted by the Electricity Board examined the materials produced before it and on consideration of the materials, the Committee came to a conclusion that the electric wire is running at the safe distance from the house of the said Sheo Balak Pandit. It was further found by the Committee that due to his own negligence, the husband of the petitioner suffered electrocution and died. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. The circular dated 25.09.2006 issued by the Electricity Board indicates that the compensation shall be paid in cases where the reason for accident has been established as negligence on the part of officers/staff of the Board. The circular makes payment of compensation, subject to a further finding that the victim was not at fault. 6. The circular dated 25.09.2006 issued by the Electricity Board indicates that the compensation shall be paid in cases where the reason for accident has been established as negligence on the part of officers/staff of the Board. The circular makes payment of compensation, subject to a further finding that the victim was not at fault. The Committee was required to examine police panchnama, postmortem report, permanent disability certificate, legal heirs certificate and Electrical Inspector's report. From the proceeding of the Committee vide report dated 22.04.2009, it appears that the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division visited the place of occurrence on 10.10.2003. The electric wire has been found running at a safe distance from the house. The report further indicates that the people in the locality informed that the husband of the petitioner was doing cleaning work on the roof of the house with the help of GI pipe which came in contact with the live electric wire due to which the husband of the petitioner suffered electrocution. Pursuant to order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 731 of 2005, the matter was again reexamined by the Committee. The review report of the Committee dated 29.09.2009 indicates that photographs of the locality as well as a sketch map indicating the distance of the electric wire from the house in question, were also produced. Considering those materials it was found that the actual distance of 11 KV line from the house of the said Sheo Balak Pandit is 6 ft. 2 inches whereas, as per provision of Indian Electricity Act, 1956 the safe distance for High Voltage line of 11,000 volts is 1.2 meters. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Committee declined to review its decision dated 22.04.2009. 7. The High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over the decision of the authorities. In “State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Chitra Venkata Rao”, reported in (1975) 2 SCC 557 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, 21. 7. The High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over the decision of the authorities. In “State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Chitra Venkata Rao”, reported in (1975) 2 SCC 557 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, 21. “…....….The departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226”. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of “Madhuri Kumari” (supra). The said case arose out of a contempt case filed by the said Madhuri Kumari. A perusal of the judgment in “Madhuri Kumari” unerringly indicates that in the said case the respondents admitted their fault. Thus, I find that the facts in the present case are entirely different from the facts of “Madhuri Kumari” case. 9. I find no merit and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.