High Court · 2025

of Smt. Dayawati wife of Ghan Shyam.

2. The accident occurred on 04.01.2012. Notice of the accident as was required in law was given on 04.01.2012. Such notice is referable to Section 161 of Electricity Act, 2003. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the notice of accident under Section 161 of the Act, statement of petitioner and the concerned Lineman was recorded by the authorities of the second respondent. The petitioner asserts that in his statement to the concerned authority regarding the accident he had informed that there was an overload on 33/11 KV Power Substation, Badhapur and the power distribution line was weak and was in a bad condition, which caused the accident. The second respondent on the basis of enquiry so conducted in respect of the accident has found the petitioner to be responsible for poor maintenance of the electricity line which led to the accident. It is on the strength of findings returned by the second respondent in enquiry under Section 161 that liability has been fastened upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards compensation.

3. The primary submission of the petitioner is that the liability on petitioner has not been fastened in any proceedings conducted in observance of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the impugned action is arbitrary.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has been found responsible for the accident in question and, therefore, the impugned orders require no interference.

5. We have heard Shri M. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pranjal Mehrotra & learned State Counsel for the respondents and have perused the materials brought on record.

6. Before referring to the submissions advanced at the bar we deem it appropriate to refer to some of the provisions which regulates exercise of jurisdiction by the authorities concerned. Section 161 of the Act of 2003 deals with an enquiry in respect of accident in connection with generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity, which is reproduced hereinafter:- "161. (Notice of accidents and injuries): --- (1) If any accident occurs in connection with the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity in or in connection with, any part of the electric lines or electrical plant of any person and the accident results or is likely to have resulted in loss of human or animal life or in any injury to a human being or an animal, such person shall give notice of the occurrence and of any such loss or injury actually caused by the accident, in such form and within such time as may be prescribed, to the Electrical Inspector or such other person as aforesaid and to such other authorities as the Appropriate Government may by general or special order, direct. (2) The Appropriate Government may, if it thinks fit, require any Electrical Inspector, or any other person appointed by it in this behalf, to inquire and report- (a) as to the cause of any accident affecting the safety of the public, which may have been occasioned by or in connection with, the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity, or (b) as to the manner in, and extent to, which the provisions of this Act or rules and regulations made thereunder or of any licence, so far as those provisions affect the safety of any person, have been complied with. (3) Every Electrical Inspector or other person holding an inquiry under sub- section (2) shall have all the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the purpose of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and material objects, and every person required by an Electrical Inspector be legally bound to do so within the meaning of section 176 of the Indian Penal Code."

7. Section 162 of the Act mandates appointment of Chief Electrical Inspector and Electrical Inspector who are to conduct an enquiry referable to Section 161.

8. Sections 167 and 176 confer power upon the Central Government to make rules for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 161 and 162 of the Act of 2003.

9. The respondents have relied upon rules known as Indian Electricity Rules 1956 framed under Section 37 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which have been amended from time to time. For passing impugned orders the respondents have placed reliance upon rule 29, 90(1), 91(1) read with rule 88 of the Rules of 1956. Rule 29 is reproduced hereinafter:- "29. Construction, installation, protection, operation and maintenance of electric supply lines and apparatus- (1) All electric supply lines and apparatus shall be of sufficient ratings for power, insulation and estimated fault current and of sufficient mechanical strength, for the duty 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. (2) Save as otherwise provided in these rules, the relevant code of practice of the 3 [Bureau of Indian Standards] 4 [including National Electrical Code] if any may be followed to carry out the purposes of this rule and in the event of any inconsistency, the provision of these rules shall prevail. (3) The material and apparatus used shall conform to the relevant specifications of the 3 [Bureau of Indian Standards] where such specifications have already been laid down."

10. Rule 88 provides for guarding and sub-rules provides for electrical parameters required to be followed for laying of electricity lines. Rule 90 regulates earthing and sub-rule (1) thereof provides as under:- "90. Earthing- (1) All metal supports and all reinforced and prestressed cement concrete supports of overhead lines and metallic fittings attached thereto, shall be permanently and efficiently earthed. For this purpose a continuous earth wire shall be provided and securely fastened to each pole and connected with earth ordinarily at three points in every km., the spacing between the points being as nearly equidistance as possible. Alternatively, each support and the metallic fitting attached thereto shall be efficiently earthed." Rule 91(1) provides as under:- "91. Safety and protective devices- (1) Every overhead line, (not being suspended from a dead bearer wire and not being covered with insulating material and not being a trolley-wire) erected over any part of street or other public place or in any factory or mine or on any consumers' premises shall be protected with a device approved by the Inspector for rendering the line electrically harmless in case it breaks."

11. The statutory scheme, noticed above, clearly indicates that in the event of occurrence of an accident the department is required to be informed of such accident so that cause responsible for the accident could be ascertained. This is clearly reflected from sub-section (1) of Section 161 of the Act of 2003, which is already extracted above. Undisputedly, in the facts of the present case, such an accident has been reported to the respondents in which a lady lost her life. The powers of electrical inspector have been exercised by the second respondent and there is no issue that the second respondent is the appropriate authority to exercise powers under Section 161 of the Act of 2003. The order passed by second respondent is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. This order contains a report of the Deputy Director, Electrical Safety. The report contains recital to the fact that electrical parameters contained in rule 29, 90(1) and 91(1) read with rule 88 of the Rules of 1956 have not been complied with as a result of which the accident in question occurred. The report holds the petitioner responsible for non adherence to the safety precautions and for not maintaining electrical lines as was required of them. An observation has also been made that appropriate action may be taken against the petitioner and the Lineman and that the victim be adequately compensated. This report forms the basis of subsequent order passed by fourth respondent in which the findings returned by second respondent are essentially made the basis for determination of liability of the present petitioner.

12. In the writ petition it is contended that except for recording the statement of petitioner no other enquiry was conducted and that his liability has not been fixed by adhering to any procedure known to law. Reliance is placed upon a communication of the petitioner to the Sub Divisional Officer dated 18.05.2011 in which it is informed that electrical line is in poor condition often leading to disruption of electrical supply and the villagers are inconvenienced. Threats were also being received from the villagers in that regard. A subsequent communication has also been relied upon for such purposes. In para 16 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated that even prior to the date of accident he had informed Sub Divisional Officer of the poor electrical lines and had requested for necessary action in the matter.

13. A counter affidavit has been filed disputing the assertions made in the writ petition. Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents points out that the communication relied upon by the petitioner regarding poor electrical lines is of a date subsequent to the date of accident. However, in the counter affidavit there is no specific denial of the assertions made in para 16 of the writ petition. In para 13 of the counter affidavit there is general denial of the assertions made in para 16 of the writ petition. Except for the observations that there was negligence on part of the petitioner and Lineman Ram Kumar, there is no other material brought on record by the respondents to show that there was any negligence attributed to the petitioner.

14. We find that the respondents before holding the petitioner liable for accident have neither conducted any detailed enquiry in the matter, nor the petitioner has been confronted with materials which may demonstrate that there was any inaction or negligence on his part which led to the accident. The respondents have relied upon the report of second respondent which also refers to various safeguards that were required under the rules to be adhered to. This report also does not hold the petitioner responsible on the basis of any definite material suggesting negligence on his part. We find substance in the petitioner's contention that a fair procedure was not followed by the respondents before holding him liable for the accident in question. There is in fact no enquiry report of any of the respondents specifically holding the petitioner responsible for the accident. Unless such material exists on record and the petitioner is confronted with it, it would not be open for the respondents to hold the petitioner responsible for poor maintenance of electrical lines.

15. We otherwise find no basis to determine the quantum of liability fixed upon the petitioner. The respondents before proceeding to determine such liability would be expected to follow a fair procedure consistent with the principles of natural justice and adopt reasonable criteria for determination of liability. In the absence of any such material justifying the impugned action we cannot allow the impugned action to exist.

16. In view of the aforesaid observations and deliberations held above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned insofar as liability is imposed upon the petitioner for payment of compensation stands quashed. The amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner pursuant to impugned proceedings or recovered from him shall be refunded to him, within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Ashok Kr. ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

of Smt. Dayawati wife of Ghan Shyam.

2. The accident occurred on 04.01.2012. Notice of the accident as was required in law was given on 04.01.2012. Such notice is referable to Section 161 of Electricity Act, 2003. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the notice of accident under Section 161 of the Act, statement of petitioner and the concerned Lineman was recorded by the authorities of the second respondent. The petitioner asserts that in his statement to the concerned authority regarding the accident he had informed that there was an overload on 33/11 KV Power Substation, Badhapur and the power distribution line was weak and was in a bad condition, which caused the accident. The second respondent on the basis of enquiry so conducted in respect of the accident has found the petitioner to be responsible for poor maintenance of the electricity line which led to the accident. It is on the strength of findings returned by the second respondent in enquiry under Section 161 that liability has been fastened upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards compensation.

3. The primary submission of the petitioner is that the liability on petitioner has not been fastened in any proceedings conducted in observance of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the impugned action is arbitrary.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has been found responsible for the accident in question and, therefore, the impugned orders require no interference.

5. We have heard Shri M. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pranjal Mehrotra & learned State Counsel for the respondents and have perused the materials brought on record.

6. Before referring to the submissions advanced at the bar we deem it appropriate to refer to some of the provisions which regulates exercise of jurisdiction by the authorities concerned. Section 161 of the Act of 2003 deals with an enquiry in respect of accident in connection with generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity, which is reproduced hereinafter:- "161. (Notice of accidents and injuries): --- (1) If any accident occurs in connection with the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity in or in connection with, any part of the electric lines or electrical plant of any person and the accident results or is likely to have resulted in loss of human or animal life or in any injury to a human being or an animal, such person shall give notice of the occurrence and of any such loss or injury actually caused by the accident, in such form and within such time as may be prescribed, to the Electrical Inspector or such other person as aforesaid and to such other authorities as the Appropriate Government may by general or special order, direct. (2) The Appropriate Government may, if it thinks fit, require any Electrical Inspector, or any other person appointed by it in this behalf, to inquire and report- (a) as to the cause of any accident affecting the safety of the public, which may have been occasioned by or in connection with, the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity, or (b) as to the manner in, and extent to, which the provisions of this Act or rules and regulations made thereunder or of any licence, so far as those provisions affect the safety of any person, have been complied with. (3) Every Electrical Inspector or other person holding an inquiry under sub- section (2) shall have all the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the purpose of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and material objects, and every person required by an Electrical Inspector be legally bound to do so within the meaning of section 176 of the Indian Penal Code."

7. Section 162 of the Act mandates appointment of Chief Electrical Inspector and Electrical Inspector who are to conduct an enquiry referable to Section 161.

8. Sections 167 and 176 confer power upon the Central Government to make rules for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 161 and 162 of the Act of 2003.

9. The respondents have relied upon rules known as Indian Electricity Rules 1956 framed under Section 37 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which have been amended from time to time. For passing impugned orders the respondents have placed reliance upon rule 29, 90(1), 91(1) read with rule 88 of the Rules of 1956. Rule 29 is reproduced hereinafter:- "29. Construction, installation, protection, operation and maintenance of electric supply lines and apparatus- (1) All electric supply lines and apparatus shall be of sufficient ratings for power, insulation and estimated fault current and of sufficient mechanical strength, for the duty 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. (2) Save as otherwise provided in these rules, the relevant code of practice of the 3 [Bureau of Indian Standards] 4 [including National Electrical Code] if any may be followed to carry out the purposes of this rule and in the event of any inconsistency, the provision of these rules shall prevail. (3) The material and apparatus used shall conform to the relevant specifications of the 3 [Bureau of Indian Standards] where such specifications have already been laid down."

10. Rule 88 provides for guarding and sub-rules provides for electrical parameters required to be followed for laying of electricity lines. Rule 90 regulates earthing and sub-rule (1) thereof provides as under:- "90. Earthing- (1) All metal supports and all reinforced and prestressed cement concrete supports of overhead lines and metallic fittings attached thereto, shall be permanently and efficiently earthed. For this purpose a continuous earth wire shall be provided and securely fastened to each pole and connected with earth ordinarily at three points in every km., the spacing between the points being as nearly equidistance as possible. Alternatively, each support and the metallic fitting attached thereto shall be efficiently earthed." Rule 91(1) provides as under:- "91. Safety and protective devices- (1) Every overhead line, (not being suspended from a dead bearer wire and not being covered with insulating material and not being a trolley-wire) erected over any part of street or other public place or in any factory or mine or on any consumers' premises shall be protected with a device approved by the Inspector for rendering the line electrically harmless in case it breaks."

11. The statutory scheme, noticed above, clearly indicates that in the event of occurrence of an accident the department is required to be informed of such accident so that cause responsible for the accident could be ascertained. This is clearly reflected from sub-section (1) of Section 161 of the Act of 2003, which is already extracted above. Undisputedly, in the facts of the present case, such an accident has been reported to the respondents in which a lady lost her life. The powers of electrical inspector have been exercised by the second respondent and there is no issue that the second respondent is the appropriate authority to exercise powers under Section 161 of the Act of 2003. The order passed by second respondent is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. This order contains a report of the Deputy Director, Electrical Safety. The report contains recital to the fact that electrical parameters contained in rule 29, 90(1) and 91(1) read with rule 88 of the Rules of 1956 have not been complied with as a result of which the accident in question occurred. The report holds the petitioner responsible for non adherence to the safety precautions and for not maintaining electrical lines as was required of them. An observation has also been made that appropriate action may be taken against the petitioner and the Lineman and that the victim be adequately compensated. This report forms the basis of subsequent order passed by fourth respondent in which the findings returned by second respondent are essentially made the basis for determination of liability of the present petitioner.

12. In the writ petition it is contended that except for recording the statement of petitioner no other enquiry was conducted and that his liability has not been fixed by adhering to any procedure known to law. Reliance is placed upon a communication of the petitioner to the Sub Divisional Officer dated 18.05.2011 in which it is informed that electrical line is in poor condition often leading to disruption of electrical supply and the villagers are inconvenienced. Threats were also being received from the villagers in that regard. A subsequent communication has also been relied upon for such purposes. In para 16 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated that even prior to the date of accident he had informed Sub Divisional Officer of the poor electrical lines and had requested for necessary action in the matter.

13. A counter affidavit has been filed disputing the assertions made in the writ petition. Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents points out that the communication relied upon by the petitioner regarding poor electrical lines is of a date subsequent to the date of accident. However, in the counter affidavit there is no specific denial of the assertions made in para 16 of the writ petition. In para 13 of the counter affidavit there is general denial of the assertions made in para 16 of the writ petition. Except for the observations that there was negligence on part of the petitioner and Lineman Ram Kumar, there is no other material brought on record by the respondents to show that there was any negligence attributed to the petitioner.

14. We find that the respondents before holding the petitioner liable for accident have neither conducted any detailed enquiry in the matter, nor the petitioner has been confronted with materials which may demonstrate that there was any inaction or negligence on his part which led to the accident. The respondents have relied upon the report of second respondent which also refers to various safeguards that were required under the rules to be adhered to. This report also does not hold the petitioner responsible on the basis of any definite material suggesting negligence on his part. We find substance in the petitioner's contention that a fair procedure was not followed by the respondents before holding him liable for the accident in question. There is in fact no enquiry report of any of the respondents specifically holding the petitioner responsible for the accident. Unless such material exists on record and the petitioner is confronted with it, it would not be open for the respondents to hold the petitioner responsible for poor maintenance of electrical lines.

15. We otherwise find no basis to determine the quantum of liability fixed upon the petitioner. The respondents before proceeding to determine such liability would be expected to follow a fair procedure consistent with the principles of natural justice and adopt reasonable criteria for determination of liability. In the absence of any such material justifying the impugned action we cannot allow the impugned action to exist.

16. In view of the aforesaid observations and deliberations held above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned insofar as liability is imposed upon the petitioner for payment of compensation stands quashed. The amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner pursuant to impugned proceedings or recovered from him shall be refunded to him, within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Ashok Kr. ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad