IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37535 of 2007(R)
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
... Respondent
2. UNNIKRISHNAN.E.B.,
3. ARAVINDAKSHAN, S/O.LATE VALLIAMMA,
4. SOUDAMINI.E.B.,
5. NANDU, AGED 7 YEARS (MINOR),
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB
For Respondent :SRI.K.ANAND
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :02/02/2010
O R D E R
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 37535 OF 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010
JUDGMENT
The Kerala State Electricity Board challenges the directions
issued by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission to pay an
amount of Rs.25,000/- each to the dependants of two women
who were electrocuted. The plea projected by the Board is that
there is no human right violation in the situation.
2. The Board admitted before the Commission that the
accident was due to snapping of a conductor due to the heavy
rain and wind and that coconut palm leaf had fallen on the line
and the conductor was broken. The area was water-logged and
the victims accidentally stepped on to the live conductor and got
electrocuted. These facts are sufficient enough to disclose that
no act of negligence or omission can be attributed to the victims.
The vagaries of nature, as pleaded by the Board before the
Commission, are well within those which have to be envisaged
and foreseen by the authority entrusted with the duties of
transmission of electrical energy.
WPC No.37535 of 2007
-:2:-
2. The concept of human rights, even in terms of the
provisions of the Human Rights Act, 1993 encompasses violations
of right to life, the right guaranteed under the Constitution of
India which means, situation that would show infraction of Article
21 of the Constitution, as also various other matters which may
fall within the realm of international averments and documents as
may be binding on the Union and States in India. With that,
there is no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned
order in as much as the deprivation of life is for no fault of the
victims, and, on facts, is directly chargeable to a situation to
which the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies. At any rate,
ends of justice do not require this Court to extend the writ
jurisdiction to erase the order issued by the Human Rights
Commission.
For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition fails and the
same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan,
Judge.
ttb
WPC No.37535 of 2007
-:3:-