S.D.O. GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD. AND ORS. versus TIMUDU ORAM

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 891 · Decided: 28-07-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

S.D.O. GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
TIMUDUORAM 
JULY 28, 2005 
[ASHOKBHAN AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.) 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Writ Jurisdiction-Exercise 
of-Scope-Death due to electrocution from livewire belonging to the 
appellant-Corporation--Writ petition filed for compensation-Held: Disputed C 
questions of facts ca.'1not be decided in exercise of jurisdiction under Art.226-
Action in tort and negligence of appellant was required to be established by 
claimants in the first instance which they failed to do-Mere ownership of 
electric transmission line by appellant was not sufficient to award 
compensation. 
The question which arose for consideration in these appeals is whether 
High Court was justified in exercising power under Article 226 in fastening 
the liability of compensation on the appellant-Corporation on account of death 
of kith and kin of respondents who died after coming into contact with the 
live wire belonging to the appellant-Corporation. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
D 
E 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ 
petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Actions in tort and 
negligence were required to be established initially by the claimants. The mere F 
fact that the wire of electric transmission line belonging to the appellant had 
snapped and the deceased had come in contact with it and died, by itself was 
not sufficient for awarding compensation. The Court was required to examine 
as to whether the wire had snapped as a result of any negligence on the part 
of the appellants, as a result of which the deceased had come in contact with 
the wire. The appellants had disputed the negligence attributed to it and no G 
finding has been recorded by the High Court that the GRIDCO was in any 
way negligent in the performance of its duty. In view of this, the appellants 
deserved an opportunity to prove that proper care and precautions were taken 
in maintaining the transmission line and yet the wires had snapped because 
891 
H 
892 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A of the circumstances beyond their control or unauthorized intervention of third 
parties. Such disputed questions of fact could not be decided in exercise of 
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (895-D, E, F] 
B 
Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRJDCO) and Ors v. 
Sukarmani Das (Smt.) and Anr., [1999] 7 SCC 298, relied on. 
1.2. The subsequent writ petition filed after a lapse of 10 years would 
not be maintainable in view of the dismissal of the suit filed on same cause of 
action. No reasons have been given for such an inordinate delay. In such a 
case, awarding of compensation in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 
C 226 cannot be justified. (897-G] 
2. As the High Court had exercised its power under Article 226 of the 
Constitution without properly appreciating the nature of its jurisdiction, the 
impugned judgments deserve to be set aside. However, in view of the long lapse 
-
of time the appellants will not recover the amounts already paid to the 
D respondents. (898-A] 
MP. Electricity Boardv. Shail Kumari and Ors:, (2002] 2 SCC 162, held 
inapplicable. 
WB. State Electricity. Board and Ors. v. Sachin Banerjee and Ors., [1999] 
E 9 SCC 21 and HS.EB and Ors. v. Ram Nath and Ors., (2004] 5 SCC 793, 
referred to 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal"No. 1726of1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.98 of the Orissa High Court 
F at Cuttack in O.J.C. No. 13281of1997. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 4552 and 4560 of2005. 
G 
Raj Kumar Mehta for the Appellants. 
S. V. Deshpande and Mrs. K. Sarada Devi for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
S.D.O. GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD. v. TIMUDU ORAM [BHAN, J.] 
893 
BHAN, J. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (c) No. 5591 of 1999 A 
and 9788 of 1998. 
In this batch of three appeals the question which arises for determination 
is as to whether the High Court was justified in exercising its power under 
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and award compensation to the 
respondent writ petitioners even though the appellants who - was the B 
respondent in the writ petition - had denied the liability on the ground that 
the deaths had not occurred as a result of their negligence but because of 
the negligence of the respondent themselves or of an act of God or because 
of an act of some other persons. These appeals we
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.