Ram Kumar Vs Hpsebl and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

Ram Kumar Vs Hpsebl and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1 crore from the respondent-Board for the loss and injuries allegedly suffered in the accident of 22.08.2007, said to have been caused by the Board's negligence. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

Although respondent No.1 did not file a reply, the documents on record make it evident that the writ petition involves disputed questions of facts, which cannot be gone into in the writ petition in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Key takeaways

As per the projected case the accident occurred on 22.08.2007; the writ petition seeking compensation was instituted on 25.06.2020, i.e. eight years after the petitioner attained majority and 13 years after the cause of action first arose, and there is no explanation for the delay and laches on the part of the petitioner.ratio¶28
On account of the disputed questions of fact and the unexplained delay and laches, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy for redressal of his grievances in accordance with law.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ practice and procedure — maintainability of compensation claim — disputed questions of fact — delay and laches — Article 226, Constitution of India. Petitioner (aged 12 at the time of the incident) sought direction to Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. to pay Rs. 1 crore compensation for burn injuries (5–7%) suffered on 22.08.2007 when wires of an adjoining electric pole got burnt, allegedly due to the Board's negligence, and to provide employment statedly promised to him at the time of the injury. Respondent filed no reply despite grant of final opportunity (¶23). An inquiry report dated 22.08.2007 (Annexure P-7) concluded the accident 'took place by chance, for which no one can be held responsible', attributing it to sliding of a boulder projected as natural calamity; a statement of the then Junior Engineer recorded on 03.10.2009 (Annexure P-6), relied upon by petitioner's counsel, attributed negligence to the Board. Holding (single-Judge bench, Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.): the documents on record show the writ petition involves disputed questions of facts which cannot be gone into under Article 226; the petition, instituted on 25.06.2020 — eight years after the petitioner attained majority and thirteen years after the cause of action first arose — discloses no explanation for the delay and laches; the writ petition was accordingly dismissed with liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy for redressal of his grievances in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.1873 of 2020

Decided on: 06.07. 2026

Ram Kumar …..Petitioner

Versus

Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd.

.....Respondent

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioner: Mr. Surjeet Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arvind Negi, Advocate.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Petitioner seeks direction to the respondent to

pay him compensation of Rs. 1 crore for the loss and injuries allegedly suffered by him on account of an accident that occurred on 22.08.2007.

2. Case set upon by the petitioner is that, on 22.08.2007 when petitioner aged 12 years at the time, was

playing in an area, wires of an adjoining electric pole got

burnt, as a result of sparking, petitioner suffered burn

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

2

injuries to the extent of 5-7 %, due to which, he remained hospitalized w.e.f. 22.08.2007 to 25.08.2007.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had suffered the injuries on account of negligence of the respondent-Board. Hence, prayer has been made to award him compensation in the sum of Rs.1crore. Prayer has also been made to direct the respondent-Board to provide him employment statedly promised to him at the time of suffering of burn injuries.

3. Despite grant of final opportunity, respondentBoard has not filed reply.

4. The inquiry report dated 22.08.2007 (Annexure P-7) concludes that “accident took place by chance, for which no one can be held responsible”. The reason attributed for the accident was sliding of a boulder, projected as an act of natural calamity.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the statement of the then Junior Engineer of the respondentBoard was recorded on 03.10.2009, wherein, negligence was attributed to the respondent-Board, resulting into burn injuries suffered by the petitioner. The aforesaid statement has been appended at Annexure P-6. In terms of the said statement, the accident occurred because of the land slide

and consequent hitting of the electric pole by a boulder. Be

3

that as it may. Even though, respondent No.1 has not filed reply, but documents on record make it evident that the writ petition involves disputed questions of facts. Further, as per the projected case, the accident occurred on 22.08.2007. This writ petition seeking compensation was instituted on 25.06.2020 i.e. eight years after the petitioner attained the age of majority and 13 years after the cause of action first arose. The disputed questions of facts cannot be gone into in this writ petition in exercise of powers under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, more so, when there is no explanation for the delay and laches on part of the petitioner. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed with liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy for the redressal of his grievances in accordance with law.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also

to stand disposed of.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua 6^th July, 2026 Judge R.Atal