to rescue the bullock and got electrocuted. His wife and daughter who came to rescue were also electrocuted. The officials of the electricity Board submitted a report against which the cause of death was mentioned to be due to illegal electric connection taken through hook. It was the case of the electricity Board that despite the fact that the officials of the Board had taken adequate steps to maintain the supply line properly, and before the storm and rain on the night of the accident the supply line was checked by the Junior Engineer and the lineman in the regular course of checking, and even before the information about the snapping of the line was received by the Board officials, the deceased while moving in the morning came in contact with the snapped electric line. In those circumstances, the Apex Court held that there was no negligence on the part of the electricity Board and the said disputed questions of facts cannot be decided in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India. However, without recording a finding with regard to the negligence on the part of the electricity Board, the High Court directed to pay compensation of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. Therefore, the Apex Court held that the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petition without appreciating the nature of its jurisdiction. However, in view of long lapse of time, the Supreme Court directed not to recover the amount already paid to the claimants. As there was a clear defence which was taken, the action of the Electricity Board in any way negligent in the performance of duty and the High Court without recording any finding with regard to the negligence on the part of the electricity board, erroneously entertained the writ petition, that too after a lapse of 10 years.
