Disposed¶26

Mishri v. Punjab Satae Power Corporation Limited and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Sept 2025CWP/21367/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Electrocution death compensation writ petition; low hanging 11 KV electric line; iron ladder; Sachdeva College; Mukesh Kumar; Government Hospital Kharar; DDR Annexure P3; postmortem report Annexure P2; PSPCL compensation policy dated 08.12.2023 Annexure P8; representation dated 15.02.2024 Annexure P7; mandamus; disposal with direction to decide representation within four months; reasoned/speaking order on rejection; CWP-21367-2025; High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; Justice Suvir Sehgal; 15.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the competent authority to decide the petitioner's representation dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure P7) within four months of communication of the order, with a further direction that a detailed reasoned order be passed if the request for compensation is rejected. ¶26

Mishri Vs Punjab Satae Power Corporation Limited and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation from the respondents on account of the death of his son, Mukesh Kumar, due to electrocution by a low hanging 11 KV electric line.

¶15

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide the petitioner's representation dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure P7) within four months from the date of communication of the copy of the Court's order.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

It is clarified that if the respondents-authorities do not accede to the request for grant of compensation, a detailed order shall be passed assigning reasons for its rejection.

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWP-21367-2025, decided 15.09.2025, Suvir Sehgal, J., Punjab & Haryana High Court): Petitioner Mishri sought a writ of mandamus directing the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another respondent to pay compensation for the death of his son, Mukesh Kumar, who died on 20.07.2016 from electrocution when an iron ladder carried at Sachdeva College came in contact with a low hanging 11 KV electric line; death was evidenced by postmortem report/death certificate (Annexure P2) and a DDR (Annexure P3). Although PSPCL had framed a compensation policy dated 08.12.2023 (Annexure P8) covering fatal and non-fatal electrocution accidents, the petitioner's representations, including that dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure P7), had not been dealt with. Without calling for a response, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the competent authority to decide the representation dated 15.02.2024 within four months of communication of the order, and clarifying that if compensation is not granted, a detailed order assigning reasons for rejection shall be passed.

CWP-21367-2025

-1-

110

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CWP-21367-2025 Date of decision:-15.09.2025

Mishri

...Petitioner

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and anr.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL

¶12

Present : Mr. Sunil K. Tandon, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

¶14

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)

¶15

Instant petition has been filed, inter alia, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner on account of death of his son, Mukesh Kumar, due to electrocution.

¶16

Counsel submits that on 20.07.2016, petitioner’s son along with his colleague were working in Sachdeva College. They were carrying an iron ladder, which came in contact with low hanging 11 KV electric line passing over the main gate. He submits that both of them sustained injuries and were declared dead at Government Hosptial,

¶17

BRIJ MOHAN 2025.09.17 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

CWP-21367-2025

-2-

110

Kharar. He has made a reference to the death certificate as well as the postmortem report, Annexure P2, to assert that the death was due to electrocution. Counsel submits that a DDR, Annexure P3, was recorded on the same day and petitioner submitted representations for grant of compensation. By referring to policy dated 08.12.2023, Annexure P8, counsel submits that despite the fact that the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. has framed a policy for grant of compensation to various categories of persons in case of fatal and, non-fatal accidents due to electrocution, representations submitted by the petitioner have not been dealt with.

¶22

Issue notice of motion to the respondents.

¶23

Mr. Lovepreet Singh Sidhu, Advocate, accepts notice on

¶24

behalf of respondents.

¶25

Given the nature of order proposed to be passed, this Court does not deem it necessary to call response from the respondents.

¶26

From the averments made in the writ petition, it transpires that various representations have been submitted by the petitioner, which are pending. In view thereof, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide the representation dated 15.02.2024, Annexure P7, within a period of four months from the date of communication of copy of this Court.

¶27