IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10049 of 2005
Mina Kumari @ Meena Kumari, wife of late Sanjay Kumar,
resident of village - Bhadsara, P.S. Pali, District Jehanabad
....... Petitioner
Versus
1. Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey
Road, Patna, through its Chairman
2. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
3. The Executive Engineer, District Electricity Office,
Jehanabad, District Jehanabad
4. The Junior Engineer, District Electricity Office,
Jehanabad, District Jehanabad
.... Respondents
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate
3 02.09.2011
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
the Respondents.
Petitioner seeks direction to the respondents
for making payment of compensation to the
petitioner, whose husband has lost life due to
negligence and carelessness of the Respondent –
Bihar State Electricity Board as while coming from
Kako to his home, a high tension electric wire, after
snapping, had fallen on the back of the husband of
the petitioner immediately electrocuting him causing
death.
However, it is submitted on behalf of the
2
respondents that the petitioner has approached this
Court without approaching the concerned authority.
Though a statement has been made in
paragraph no. 9 that the petitioner has approached
the respondents for grant of rupees ten lacs by way
of compensation, however, it has neither been
stated as to whom she had approached nor is any
copy of such representation or application has been
appended with this application. In the absence of the
above, it would be very difficult for this Court to
give a positive direction in this matter.
Accordingly, this application is being
disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to
approach the respondent no. 2, Secretary, Bihar State
Electricity Board, by filing a representation giving
all the details therein as, according to learned
counsel appearing for the respondents, he would be
competent authority to decide the matter.
Before parting with the matter, it would be
necessary to mention that the guidelines issued by the
Board as contained in memo no. 891 dated
12.11.2005, a copy of which was produced by the
3
petitioner at the time of hearing of this case, disclose
that a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, which was later on
enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- by subsequent guideline
dated 1.10.2007, is to be paid immediately as ex
gratia.
Thus, it would be open for the
respondents to act in accordance with the guidelines
as aforesaid.
If such application is made by the
petitioner within three weeks along with a certified
copy of this order then the same should be disposed
of by the concerned respondent within three months
thereafter.
Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)