HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 34740 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 & 3 and Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate bearing Advocate Roll No.A/R 0622/12 holding brief of Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 4. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following relief: "(a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent No.3 (Deputy Director Electricity Safety Government of U.P. Prayagraj Region Prayagraj) to make enquiry of the electruction death of petitioner's husband dated 26.11.2023 in village Tenduwa, Police Station-Khakhreru, District Fatehpur, within stipulated periods. (b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of the mandamus directing the respondent No. 4 (Executive Engineer (Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Yuvraj Nagar Khaga District Fatehpur) to pay the compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- as per recent office memorandum alongwith the with interest to amount of future prospectus the petitioner within the stipulated periods. (c) Issue any other writ, order or direction this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (d) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner." Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Indresh Kumar Mishra, Viresh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Narendra Kumar Tiwari Maya Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 3. The case of the petitioners is that her husband died in an accident on 26.11.2023 due to electric shock when he climbed on a tree over which 11000 KW electric wire was passing through. Thereafter, the post mortem of the deceased was conducted in which cause of death was found to be ante mortem injury. The grievance of the petitioner is that after the incident, the personnels of the electricity department inspected the spot and consoled the petitioner, but no enquiry has been conducted and no compensation has been paid to the petitioner who is a pardanaseen lady. The petitioner, in this respect, submitted several representations, but no heed has been paid on the same. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that no useful would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent no.3 to consider the grievance of the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed off permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation ventilating all her grievances before the respondent no.3-Deputy Director, Electricity Safety, Government of U.P., Prayagraj Region, Prayagraj along with a certified copy of this order within a period of one month from today. In case any such representation is filed by the petitioner, respondent no.3 shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period one month thereafter. October 13, 2025 NS WRIC No. 34740 of 2025 2 (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad