JUDGMENT : S. N. Prasad, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed wherein the prayer has been sought for a direction upon the opposite parties to award compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner on account of injury sustained by him due to electric shock. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, is that on 10.8.2009 at about 10:00 A.M. while he was going to his paddy field with paddy plants, came in contact with 11 K.V. necked wire, which was hanging very low and as such, he sustained grievous burn injuries in his body due to electric shock, which was reported in the daily newspapers. The same was also been informed by local people to the local Junior Engineer/Junior Manager, who conducted an inquiry and has made Station Diary Entry before Balikuda Police Station about the injury sustained by the petitioner. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that due to the said electric shock, he remained in S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack for his treatment where he was treated in Plastic Surgery Ward and remained as indoor patient about 1½ months, i.e., from 10.8.2009 to 23.9.2009 and as such, he claims the compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- from the opposite parties and when his grievance has not been meted out, the instant writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel while arguing the case of the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of T. Bimala v. C.M.C., Cuttack & Ors., reported in 2015 (II) ILR – CUT-1 and the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. V. Naval Kumar alias Rohit Kumar, reported in 2017 (I) CLR (SC) – 491. 5. Per contra, the opposite parties has contested the case by filing a detailed counter affidavit inter alia stated therein that the writ petition is not maintainable due to involvement of disputed question of facts, which needs to be determined by adducing oral evidence and other documentary evidence for just decision of the case to establish the acts of any negligence, if at all caused by these opposite parties in sustaining burn injuries on the part of the petitioner. It has been contended that the Electricity Act, 2003 provides for inquiry by a competent authority, which is being a fact finding authority only to arrive at the conclusion of negligence in question by any party. However, in the instant case, no such action or inquiry has been conducted to the knowledge of the opposite parties nor the petitioner has ever approached to the concerned authority as per the requirement of law. Hence, unless and until the negligence as has been alleged by the petitioner is committed whether or not by these opposite parties is proved and established through a competent authority as provided under the Act, 2003 or through the civil court, this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not interfere in the matter for awarding the compensation in favour of the petitioner without determining the negligence in maintaining the electric line and the documentary evidence as have been annexed in the writ petition are not at all sufficient enough to arrive at the conclusion of any acts of negligence in maintaining the electric line on the part of these opposite parties. It has been submitted by learned counsel representing the opposite parties that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, according to him, each judgment is to be seen on the basis of the factual aspect involved in the case. It has been submitted that in the case of T. Bimala (Supra), the Division Bench of this Court has not laid down any ratio rather, the appellant has been directed to work out her remedies in the common law forum for higher compensation and this Court, taking into consideration the cause of death due to electrocution, has directed the respondents to pay interim compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. But, here in the instant case, it is not a case of death rather, it is a case of injury and as such, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is not any aid to him. So far as the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. But, here in the instant case, it is not a case of death rather, it is a case of injury and as such, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is not any aid to him. So far as the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (supra), it has been contended by the learned counsel that this judgment is also not applicable in view of the fact that there the victim was a minor child, who was came in contact with 11 K.V. wire and as such, the compensation has been assessed and paid by the High Court which subsequently been affirmed by reducing the amount of compensation. In that case, Hon’ble the High Court of Himachal Pradesh as also Hon’ble the Supreme Court have taken into consideration the age of the deceased and thereafter, awarded the compensation. It has been submitted that the factual fact is involved in the instant case is that the petitioner has sustained burn injuries due to electric shock at the age of 25 years and as such, he is a man of full sense. Hence, the decision for making compensation is to be taken by proving the negligence as to whether the negligence on the part of the opposite parties or on the part of the petitioner. Hence, this judgment is also not applicable. He has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and others v. Smt. Sukamani Das and another, reported in AIR 1999 SC 3412 and exactly in the similar situation, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has been pleased to hold in the matter of tort or negligence, passing order for compensation by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not proper remedy. According to him, this judgment governed the field and in the light of the settled proposition of law, the petitioner cannot be extended any relief as has been prayed by him. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. According to him, this judgment governed the field and in the light of the settled proposition of law, the petitioner cannot be extended any relief as has been prayed by him. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. This Court, after appreciating the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, has come across the fact that the petitioner, who is aged about 25 years, while going to paddy field on 10.8.2009 at about 10:00 A.M. sustained burn injuries due to electric shock from 11 K.V. necked wire which resulted serious burn injuries for which he has been hospitalized and remained as indoor patient in the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. The matter has been reported in the daily newspapers as also made Station Diary Entry and the F.I.R. has been instituted. 8. The petitioner claims compensation from the opposite parties upon amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on the ground of negligence committed on their part. Since, according to the petitioner, the electric wire should not have been kept in a live position and it has not properly been installed which resulted into the injuries. Hence, the opposite parties were negligent which resulted in serious injury as they are liable to compensate him. While, on the other hand, the opposite parties seriously disputed the claim of the petitioner by saying that there is no negligence on their part rather, it is the petitioner, who was not vigilant in moving the paddy filed, since the electric wire was installed since long and the petitioner, who was aged about 25 years on the date of occurrence. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner was very much vigilant and in spite of the vigilance, he has sustained injury. 9. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner was very much vigilant and in spite of the vigilance, he has sustained injury. 9. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner rendered by the Division Bench in the case of T. Bimala (supra) wherein the fact of the case is that the victim has sustained injury and subsequently, he succumbed to the said injury on account of electrocution and as such, a writ petition was filed before this Court, but this Court, after taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukamani Das (supra), has dismissed the writ petition which has been assailed by him under the intra court appeal by filing a writ appeal and the Division Bench of this Court distinguishing the judgment in the case of Sukamani Das (supra) by holding at paragraph-18 that Sukamani cannot be understood as laying a law that in every case of tortuous liability recourse must be had a suit. When there is negligence on the fact of it and infringement of Article 21 is there, it cannot be said that there will be any bar to proceed under Article 226 of the Constitution, since right of life is one of the basic rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is evident from the said judgment that the Division Bench of this Court has directed the respondents to pay interim compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with a direction to work out remedy in the common law forum for higher compensation. Hence, no proposition have been laid down therein while granting the interim compensation, has taken the consideration that there was a case of death and as such, the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court is not in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, since it is not a case of death rather, it is a case of injury sustained due to electric shock. It is also not applicable for the reason that the petitioner in the instant case is 25 years of age and it is his admission that the 11 K.V. wire installed in his paddy field which belongs to him, but he has not raised any objection at any time before the date of occurrence, since nothing has been stated in the pleading of the writ petition and that is the case of the petitioner also and as such, it cannot be said that there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner. 10. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the electric wire was not properly been installed rather, it was lower in height and due to that reason it touches body and due to the shock, he sustained injury. But whether the live electric wire was not in accordance with the parameter fixed under the Electricity Act, 2003 or not it relates to the determination of factual aspect and the same cannot be decided by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India rather, the evidence has to lead in these circumstances to assess as to whether the live wire was in accordance with the parameter fixed under the Electricity Act, 2003 or not? 11. The judgment in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (supra) is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case for the reason that in that case the victim, who was a boy of 8 years old at the time of incident, accompanied his mother to the fields to collect “Saag” where he got electrocuted with a high tension live wire (11 KV) and as such, the factual aspect of that case is not similar to that of the present case, since here the petitioner is aged about 25 years and he was knowing very well that in his paddy field the electric wire was going on, but he was not raised any objection while knowing this fact. He instead of being cautious, has came in contact and as such, the part of the negligence is to be proved before passing the award of compensation, which admittedly cannot be adjudicated by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. He instead of being cautious, has came in contact and as such, the part of the negligence is to be proved before passing the award of compensation, which admittedly cannot be adjudicated by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sukamani Das (supra) wherein the fact of the case was that the electric wire which was lying across the road after getting snapped from the overhead electric line and in that circumstances, even the High Court has granted compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated it by holding that the matter of negligence is to be proved which admittedly cannot be done under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as such, the order passed by this Court has been set aside. 13. In the considered view of this Court that the case of Sukamani Das (supra) is squarely covered to the case of the petitioner, rather than the judgment relied upon by the petitioner. The fact of the case of Sukamani Das (supra) is that even when the live wire was in the road, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the negligence is to be proved which cannot be under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But, here in the instant case, the wire was not on the road rather, it was overhead and, according to the petitioner, it was not upto the mark as per the provision of Electricity Act, 2003. Hence, the fact of the instant case is better than that of the case of Sukamani Das (supra) and when the proposition has been laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sukamani Das (supra), even that situation where the live wire was on the road, the order of the High Court has been set aside. Then, it would not be proper to give go by to the proposition laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sukamani Das (supra) in view of the factual aspect involved in the instant case. 14. Taking into consideration the factual aspects and the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case. 14. Taking into consideration the factual aspects and the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed.