Anil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1594 of 2022 ====================================================== Anil Kumar Son of Late Lalji Prasad, resident of Village - Dighwa, P.O.- Bhadura, P.S. Masaurhi, District - Patna (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through Bihar Electricity Board through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna.
2.
The Managing Director, South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Patna.
3.
The Deputy Secretary, South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Patna.
4.
The Engineer-in-Chief, Masaurhi, Bihar Electricity Board, Patna. 5.
The Chief Engineer, Masaurhi, Bihar Electricity Board, Patna. 6.
The Superintending Engineer, Masaurhi, Bihar Electricity Board, Patna. 7.
The Executive Engineer, Masaurhi, Bihar Electricity Board, Patna. 8.
The Assistant Engineer/SDO, Masaurhi, Bihar Electricity Board, Patna. 9.
The Junior Engineer, Masaurhi, Bihar Electricity Board, Patna. 10.
The Joint Director of Account and its companion of Bihar Electricity Board, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ravinder Kumar Sharma, Adv For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Lalit Kishore (AG) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 20-06-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-
Patna High Court CWJC No.1594 of 2022 dt.20-06-2022 2/3 In view of the response filed by respondent no. 2 since disputed issues of fact with regard to the cause of death have arisen, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition save
Patna High Court CWJC No.1594 of 2022 dt.20-06-2022 3/3 and except leave it open for the petitioner to take recourse to such other alternative efficacious remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law.
According to petitioner, his father died on account of electrocution on the road, whereas according to the respondent no. 2, based on the investigation conducted (private in nature), on three different occasions, the deceased did died of electrocution but in his fields and that too to while he was trying to illegally irrigate the fields by unauthorizedly connecting the motor to the electric wire.
Well we do not express our opinion on the averments made, but in view of the disputed position, we leave it for the petitioner to agitate the issue before the appropriate forum. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (Sanjay Karol, CJ) (S. Kumar, J) ranjan/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date Transmission Date NA