Writ for compensation in electrocution case dismissed as maintainability barred by disputed questions of negligence and unauthorized construction.

The Petitioner’s son, Luv Kumar Soni, died on August 11, 2017, due to electrocution from an 11,000-volt high-tension wire while fixing a metal flex board on the roof of the Petitioner’s residence

The Petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 1 (TPDDL/BSES) was negligent as the wire was only 0.6 meters from the building, whereas norms required 1.2 meters

Respondent No. 1 contended that the lines were installed prior to 2002 at a safe distance of 1.5 meters, but the distance was reduced to 0.6 meters due to the Petitioner’s illegal balcony extension

The Respondent further claimed an 'Accessibility Notice' regarding this unauthorized construction was served on July 17, 2017, which the Petitioner denies receiving

The Court applied the principles of the Law of Torts regarding negligence and the constitutional limits of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) & Ors. v. Sukamani Das, which holds that writ courts should not adjudicate compensation claims involving disputed facts

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Sumathi, reinforcing that such matters require civil trial

H.S.E.B. v. Ram Nath, noting that while electricity providers deal in inherently dangerous activities, the existence of specific prior notices to the consumer regarding unauthorized construction shifts the burden of liability

The Court observed that the Respondent’s high-tension lines existed prior to 2002 and complied with the Central Electricity Authority Regulations, 2010, until the Petitioner altered the building’s footprint

The Respondent produced evidence of an Accessibility Notice issued a month before the incident, warning of the danger posed by the unauthorized construction; the Petitioner’s denial of this notice created a "disputed question of fact"

Since the Petitioner failed to produce income documentation for the deceased and the Respondent challenged the fundamental allegations of negligence based on the Petitioner's own illegal acts, the Court reasoned that the matter could not be decided without a full trial

Relying on the precedent in Rina Devi v. GNCTD, the Court held that summary writ proceedings are inappropriate for cases where the proximity to the wire was caused by the victim’s own unauthorized structural changes

The petition was dismissed. However, the Court granted the Petitioner liberty to seek civil remedies, directing the civil court to consider the time spent in writ proceedings for the purposes of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963