Tiki Badar v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC29 Jan 2026WP(C)/34280/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa HC writ petition seeking compensation for electrocution death attributed to TPCODL negligence; TPCODL pointed to an NHRC proceeding (initiated by a human rights activist) dropped on the Dy. Electrical Inspector's report dated 26.12.2014 finding death due to unauthorized use of electricity; petitioner was not a party to that proceeding; court directed petitioners to seek reconsideration of the claim before the NHRC and disposed of the writ petition with that liberty. Keywords: Rule Nisi, electrocution, compensation, TPCODL, NHRC, Dy. Electrical Inspector, unauthorized use of electricity, reconsideration, disposed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the Petitioners to move the NHRC by filing an appropriate application for reconsideration of their claim; with that liberty the Writ Petition stands disposed of. ¶¶33

Tiki Badar Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.34280 of 2025

¶2

Tiki Badar and Others

¶3

…. Petitioners Mr. P.K. Kar, Adv..

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties

¶6

Mr. S.P. Das, ASC Mr. L.K. Maharana, Adv. (for TPCODL)

¶7

COROM:

¶8

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

29.01.2026

Order No

05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶13

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶14

3. Objection affidavit to the instructions filed by the Opp. Parties-TPCODL filed in Court be kept on record.

¶15

4. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer:

¶16

In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased issue Rule Nisi and asking the Opp. Parties 1 & 4 to submit show cause as why adequate compensation would not be paid to the Petitioner due to negligence careless conduct and breach of duty of the Opp. party Department.

¶17

If the Opp. party failed to file the show cause, then make the rule absolute and order them to grant compensation as per the law.

¶18

And pass any other order or direction as may deem fit and proper to this Hon’ble Court.

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioners shall as in duty bound ever pray.

¶21

5. It is contended that even though husband of Petitioner No.1 died due to electrocution, but TPCODL is not paying the compensation as due and admissible, on the face of several approach being made by the Petitioners.

¶22

6. Basing on the instruction, learned counsel appearing for the TPCODL contended that claiming similar benefit of compensation, National Human Rights Commission was also moved by a Human Rights Activist.

¶23

6.1. It is contended that in the said proceeding, when a report was called for with regard to the cause of death of the deceased, after due inquiry, a report was submitted by the Dy. Electrical Inspector, (T & D), Bhubaneswar. In the said report, it was clearly indicated that the deceased due to unauthorized use of electricity, succumbed to the injury and no fault lies with the Company. Considering such report submitted by the Dy. Electrical Inspector, NHRC, dropped the proceeding.

¶24

6.2. It is accordingly contended that since on the selfsame issue, claim made on behalf of the Petitioners by the Human Rights Activist in question has been dropped by NHRC, basing on the report submitted by the Dy. Electrical Inspector, the present Writ Petition with similar prayer is not entertainable.

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

// 3 //

¶27

7. Basing on the objection so filed today, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was never a party before the NHRC anlo/d she had no knowledge about the same, till the same was brought to the notice by the Opp. Party-TPCODL, while producing the instructions in the present matter. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner was never noticed in the case and was not a party before the Commission, order passed by the NHRC in dropping the proceeding, initiated at the instance of Human Rights Activist is not a bar to entertain the present Writ Petition.

¶28

8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court is of the view that claiming similar compensation, when NHRC was moved by the Human Rights Activist, a report was called for by the said Commission. Basing on such direction of the Commission, a report was furnished by the Dy. Electrical Inspector (T & D), Bhubaneswar on 26.12.2014 and in the said report, fault was found with the deceased, as due to unauthorized use of electricity, the deceased died due to electrocution. Considering such report submitted by the Dy. Electrical Inspector on 26.12.2014, the Commission dropped the proceeding.

¶29

6.1. Since basing on the report submitted by the Dy. Electrical Inspector, proceeding initiated before NHRC

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

// 4 //

¶32

was dropped, it is the view of this Court that petitioners have to move the said Commission by filing appropriate application for reconsideration of the claim.

¶33

7. With the aforesaid liberty, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶34

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶35

sangita

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cut tack Date: 03-Feb-2026 19:29:46

¶38

Page 4 of 4