JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the opp.party no.1, to make payment of Rupees Six Lakhs as compensation to the petitioner for the death of her husband caused due to the rash and negligent conduct of the opp.party No.1. 2. Heard Mrs. C.Kasturi, learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of appearance of a set of counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.1 and 2 , it appears after withdrawal of the power of the counsel already appeared and even after a counter has been filed on behalf of said opposite parties, there is no further engagement by the opposite party nos.1 and 2. This matter is, therefore, disposed of only hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner but, however, taking into consideration the counter filed by the opposite party nos.1 and 2 available on record. There is no appearance of opposite party no.3 in spite of due notice. 3. Short fact as narrated in the writ petition and submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein is that the opposite party no.3 as a private individual installed a shallow water-pump in village Berhampur for the purpose of irrigation of his lands and in connivance with the lineman of opposite party no.1, the opposite party no.3 connected electric line from the pole standing near the Mahadev Temple for clandestine supply of electricity to his pump. It is specifically averred in the writ petition that the electric line has been installed illegally in a negligible manner in joining broken wires. It is further averred in paragraph 3 that on 16.3.1991 the connecting line wire was somehow got snapped from one of its joint and the live wire from the pole fell into the water of the village tank, as a result of which the water of the tank was charged with high voltage current. The husband of the petitioner, who usually catches fish from the tank on 16.3.1991 while entered into water to catch fish, came in contact with high voltage current charged with the water. Nearby persons rescued him with the help of stick and took him to nearby hospital where the husband of the petitioner was declared to be dead. The husband of the petitioner, who usually catches fish from the tank on 16.3.1991 while entered into water to catch fish, came in contact with high voltage current charged with the water. Nearby persons rescued him with the help of stick and took him to nearby hospital where the husband of the petitioner was declared to be dead. On these backgrounds, the wife of the deceased filed this writ petition making a claim for Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees six lakhs) as compensation against the opposite parties-Orissa State Electricity Board existed at the relevant point of time. 4. By filing counter on behalf of opposite party nos.1 and 2 in the year 1992, the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 while seriously disputing the claim as against then protested the claim on the premises that there is clear admission of the petitioner that the power connection was given by opposite party no.3, a private party. The opposite party nos.1 and 2 also denied entertaining any claim as against the opposite party nos.1 and 2 on the premises of disputed question of facts involved therein. 5. Considering the rival pleadings and contentions, earlier this writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order 14.12.1992 dismissing the writ petition thereby disentitling the petitioner on the ground of involvement of disputed question of fact and clear denial of the opposite party nos.1 and 2 to the claim of the petitioner. Special Leave Petition being filed by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P.(Civil) No.4278 of 1993, by order dated 16.8.1995, Hon’ble Apex Court while entertaining the S.L.P., as an interim measure, directed payment of Rs.20,000/-to the appellant as ex-gratia. Finally, in disposing the appeal involving the above S.L.P. directed grant of further ex-gratia of Rs.60,000/-, but both amount were directed to be kept under fixed deposit and permitted the petitioner to enjoy interest thereon only. In the process, this Court finds there has been already a deposit of Rs.80,000/-(Rupees eighty thousand) in the nationalized bank by virtue of the Hon’ble Supreme Court direction as a matter of grant of ex-gratia to the petitioner. It also appears that in the final disposal of the Civil Appeal No.7349 of 1995, the Hon’ble Supreme Court setting aside this Court’s final order remitted the matter back to this Court for re-adjudication of the matter involved therein. 6. It also appears that in the final disposal of the Civil Appeal No.7349 of 1995, the Hon’ble Supreme Court setting aside this Court’s final order remitted the matter back to this Court for re-adjudication of the matter involved therein. 6. This matter has been re-opened consequent upon the direction of the Hon’ble apex Court involving Civil Appeal No.7349 of 1995. From the pleadings available on record and the submissions made herein, this Court finds there is no dispute that the petitioner had a clear admission in the writ petition that the opposite party no.3, a private party had given electricity connection to the shallow water-pump installed in Village-Berhampur for the purpose of irrigation of the land of opposite party no.3. There is also no dispute that the snap of the electric wire involving the said connection, the water of the pond got charged and the petitioner’s husband being unaware while entering into water of the pond to catch fish came into contact with the live wire charged therein and died instantly. Supporting documents through medical report established that the death is possible on account of electrocution. For the pleadings and materials available on record, this Court finds through there is serious dispute by the opposite party nos.1 and 2 with regard to their responsibility in the matter involved but however considering that theft of electricity being a serious affair, the incident being an outcome of theft of electricity and death being taking place on account of electrocution, the opposite party nos.1 and 2 being the custodian of the power, the authority should have been remain more vigilant and there responsibility in such mater cannot be wholly ruled out for the responsibility of supply of electricity in the particular area was statutorily conferred on the opposite party nos.1 and 2. 7. At this stage, it is worth mentioning that in the case of Babu Bhai v. Nandalal, AIR 1974 SC 2105 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both fact and law. But when petitioner raises complex issue of fact which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken and on that account, High Court is of the view that the disputed statement may not be appropriately tried in a writ petition. But when petitioner raises complex issue of fact which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken and on that account, High Court is of the view that the disputed statement may not be appropriately tried in a writ petition. If, however on consideration of the nature of controversy, the High Court decides that it should go into a disputed question of fact, the same can be done. Similarly, in another case in between Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari and others, AIR 2002 SC 551 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that wherein compensation was claimed for the death of one workman, who while proceeding on the road died on electrocution when he came in contact with a live electric wire lying on the road as the transmission maintained by the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board has snapped. The defence taken by the Board that the same was due to the act of one Hari Gaikwad who had taken wire from the main supply line in order to siphon the energy for his own use and the said act of pilferage was done clandestinely without even the notice of the Board, was not accepted extending the doctrine “strict liability” laid down in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, 1868 Law Reports (3) HL 330. 8. Considering the above legal position, further considering the length of journey of the widow-petitioner in the matter of claim of compensation for loss of life of her husband admittedly on account of electrocution, keeping in view the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7349 of 1995 and the incident taking place at her age at 29 years and presently she is already 54 years including her one journey to the Hon’ble Apex Court, she lost her entire youth in the litigation process, this Court while allowing the writ petition directs opposite party nos.1 and 2 and or in the event any other establishment stepping into the shoe of the opposite party nos.1 and 2 for the changes made by the State Government, to pay a total compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-(Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand) to the petitioner. 9. 9. Since this Court finds the petitioner is already in receipt of a sum of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) at the first instance by virtue of the interim direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No.4278 of 1993 dated 14.12.1992 and a further sum of Rs.60,000/-(Rupees sixty thousand) by virtue of final order in the Civil Appeal No.7349 of 1995, the party under this direction shall pay a further sum of Rs.2,70,000/-(Rupees two lakhs seventy thousand) buy way of demand draft drawn in favour of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the direction of this Court by the petitioner. Looking to suffering of the petitioner for nearly two and half decade in the process of litigation, this Court also awards a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) as cost which amount also needs to be paid within four weeks from the date of communication of the order by the petitioner. 10. The writ petition succeeds but however, with cost as awarded hereinabove.