JUDGMENT & ORDER : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Heard Mrs. N.S. Thakuria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned standing counsel, Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL), appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned State counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos.6 & 7. 2. The petitioner is the widow of Late Amar Kaibarta, who was a cultivator. The case of the petitioner is that on 21.05.2014 at about 12:30 AM, while her husband was returning home from a Bihu function, he came in contact with a live wire, which was lying in the roadside in front of Buragohai Namghar at Nahira. He was recovered in an unconscious state and was first taken to Rampur Public Health Centre, wherefrom he was referred to Gauhati Medical College & Hospital (GMCH) for treatment but on the way to GMCH, he succumbed to his injuries. Post-mortem examination was conducted on 22.05.2014 and the cause of death was declared as death due to syncope as a result of ventricular fibrillation following anti-mortem electrocution. On the basis of information received, a case being U.D. Case No.24/2014, was registered by the Bijoynagar Police Station. 3. At the time of death, the husband of the petitioner left behind the petitioner and 2(two) minor daughters, aged about 7 years and 2 years. The petitioner states that her husband was aged about 33 years at the time of his death and he used to earn about Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum. 4. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing the instant writ application on 08.12.2014. 5. The APDCL authorities had filed 2(two) affidavits: one on 16.10.2015 and the other on 25.04.2018. In the affidavit dated 16.10.2015, it is stated that on 22.05.2014, because of heavy and strong wind and downpour, one branch of a tree had snapped and had fallen on a Low Tension Line and the line had tripped. In the other affidavit dated 25.04.2018, the report of the Electrical Inspector dated 02.08.2017 is enclosed. In the affidavit dated 16.10.2015, it is stated that on 22.05.2014, because of heavy and strong wind and downpour, one branch of a tree had snapped and had fallen on a Low Tension Line and the line had tripped. In the other affidavit dated 25.04.2018, the report of the Electrical Inspector dated 02.08.2017 is enclosed. In the said report dated 02.08.2017, the causes leading to the accident and contravention of the provisions of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety & Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 are noted as follows:- "D. Causes leading to the accident:- It appears that on that fateful night one conductor of the 230V overhead line had snapped due to storm and fallen on the roadside near Buragohain Namghar, and remained there in live condition due to non-function of protective device. While the victim was coming from the Bihu function to his residence, he somehow came into contact with the snapped live conductor and got electrocuted. It appears that the victim probably got electric shock by the leakage current through the snapped conductor and the effect of that electric shock became fatal. E. Contravention of provisions of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety & Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010:- Contravention on the part of the APDCL (LAZ):- Regulation 12(1): All electric supply lines and apparatus shall be of sufficient rating for power, insulation and estimated fault current and of sufficient mechanical strength, for the duty cycle which they may be required to perform under the environmental conditions of installation, and shall be constructed, installed, protected, worked and maintained in such a manner as to ensure safety of human beings, animals and property. Regulation 35(3)(ii): In respect of all transformers installed in or after the year 2000, on the secondary side of all transformers a circuit breaker of adequate rating shall be installed. Provided that for suppliers' transformers of capacity below 1000KVA, a linked switch with fuse or circuit breaker of adequate rating shall be installed on secondary side. Regulation 73(1): Every overhead line which is not being suspended from a dead bearer wire, not being covered with insulating material and not being a trolley-wire, is erected over any part of a street or other public place or in any factor or mine or on any consumer's premises shall be protected with earth guarding for rendering the line electrically harmless in case it breaks." 6. Ms. Ms. Thakuria has submitted that the report of the Electrical Inspector makes it abundantly clear that there was negligence on the part of the APDCL authorities in maintaining the electricity line and that the husband of the petitioner died as a result of electrocution is fortified by the post-mortem report. Accordingly, she submits that the petitioner is entitled to compensation. She places reliance on a judgment of this Court dated 05.05.2014 passed in WP(C) No.908/2004, which was also affirmed by order dated 10.02.2017 passed in Writ Appeal No.9/2015. She submits that the principle followed in computing compensation, as was done in the said case, may be applied in the instant case, by taking the income of the husband of the petitioner to be Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum. 7. Mr. Dutta, however, submits that there is an Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2013 approving the quantum of compensation relating to payment of compensation in respect of victims of electrical accident and as per the said Office Memorandum, if negligence is established, the petitioner would be entitled to Rs. 2,50,000/-. He submits that the said Office Memorandum was not brought to the notice of the Court while WP(C) No.908/2004 and Writ Appeal No.9/2015 were disposed of. It is further submitted by him that the earlier Office Memorandum holding the field being Office Memorandum dated 22.12.2008 having been brought to the notice of the Court in WP(C) No.4809/2009, this Court, while disposing of the said writ petition by order dated 26.08.2010, had granted the petitioners therein the admissible amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation on the basis of the said Office Memorandum and had granted liberty to the petitioners therein to claim higher amount in an appropriate proceeding. He has submitted that no reliance can be placed on the report of the Electrical Inspector, the same having been issued more than 3(three) years after the accident. He has also referred to Paragraph 3 of the affidavit dated 25.04.2018 to contend that after the line had snapped, the same had tripped. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the materials on record. 9. From the materials on record, it appears to the Court that the husband of the petitioner had died of electrocution. The submission of Mr. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the materials on record. 9. From the materials on record, it appears to the Court that the husband of the petitioner had died of electrocution. The submission of Mr. Dutta that the report of the Electrical Inspector dated 02.08.2017 having been issued more than 3(three) years from the date of the accident cannot wholly be relied upon does not merit acceptance as the report was not challenged by the APDCL authorities. What is apparent is that the APDCL had accepted that there was snapping of electrical wire on the day when the husband of the petitioner died. The plea taken that the line had tripped, does not merit acceptance as the place of injury and snapping of wire, is admitted to be more or less in the same location. 10. In that view of the matter, it has to be accepted that the husband of the petitioner died due to the negligence of the APDCL authorities in an electrical accident. 11. However, Mr. Dutta is right in submitting that while disposing of WP(C) No.908/2004 and Writ Appeal No.9/2015, the Office Memorandum fixing compensation was not placed before the Court and that when such Office Memorandum was brought to the notice of the Court, the Court had declined to grant compensation higher than the rate fixed in the Office Memorandum. Therefore, I am of the opinion that when the Office Memorandum had been issued fixing compensation, it will be appropriate for the writ Court to give a direction for payment of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- to the petitioner. The petitioner will be at liberty to pursue such remedies, as may be available in law, to claim further compensation in an appropriate proceeding before the appropriate Court of law. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioner, despite the Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2013, had not been paid any compensation although more than 4(four) years have gone by, I deem it appropriate to grant interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition till the date of payment. 13. The interest amount along with the compensation amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- shall be deposited before the Registry of this Court. 14. At this stage, Mr. 13. The interest amount along with the compensation amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- shall be deposited before the Registry of this Court. 14. At this stage, Mr. Dutta submits that the aforesaid amount will be deposited before the Registry of this Court within a period of 60(sixty) days from today. On such deposit being made, the amount shall be released to the petitioner on being duly identified. 15. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of. No cost.