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 1Whether 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, respondent- Board 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 respondent- Board 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 6th July, 2026 Judge R.Atal