- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14802 WP No. 106355 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 106355 OF 2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER O AND M SUB DIVISION, HESCOM, SAUNDATTI DIST: BELGAUM. 2. SECTION OFFICER, MURGOD SECTION OFFICER, HESCOM, MURGOD TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BHUSHAN B. KULAKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: DADASAHEB S/O. DASTAGIRSAHEB NADAF AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. HOSUR, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDA, PRAYING TO, QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT, BELGAUM IN O.P.NO.156/2012 DATED 12.02.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ISSUE SUCH OTHER WRIT / DIRECTIONS / ORDERS AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS AND TO GRANT RELIEF TO THE PETITIONERS. Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.07 11:06:43 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14802 WP No. 106355 of 2014 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) Petitioners HESCOM Authorities are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the Order dated 12.02.2014 in O.P. No.156/2012 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (for short ‘PLA’) whereunder the appellants are directed to pay a sum of ₹75,000/- to the respondent with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of actual realisation. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri Bhushan V. Kulkarni, for petitioners and Sri Deepak S.Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. The respondent was before the PLA in O.P.No.156/2012, claiming compensation of ₹2,80,900/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the incident that took place on 27.05.2012 wherein the sugarcane crop of the petitioner caught fire and entire sugar cane crop and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14802 WP No. 106355 of 2014 20 pipes fixed for sprinkler purpose were burnt, which resulted in total loss of ₹1,90,000/- to the petitioner. It is submitted that due to the negligence on the part of the petitioners, the electric lines came in contact with each other and on spark, the sugar cane crop standing on the land of the respondent caught fire. 4. Petitioner examined himself as PW1 apart from markings Exs.P1 to P6, whereas respondents examined RW1 and RW2 and marked Exs.R1 and R2 in support of their case. The PLA on consideration of the material on record and considering the evidence of RW2, has recorded a finding that incident in question has occurred due to brushing of wires against each other, which would mean that the respondents were negligent in maintaining the electric wires in proper condition. The PLA on considering the material on record, assessed the compensation at the rate of ₹75,000/- and directed the petitioner to pay the same along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. The PLA noted that the standing crops were 4 to 5 months old and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14802 WP No. 106355 of 2014 added only 50% of the total income along with cultivation expenses. The report of the Deputy Electrical Inspector and the Electrical Inspector (Annexure-E) shows that due to heavy wind, two lines have come in contact and spark has taken place. Thus, there is clear finding based on material that two wires came in contact and spark has taken place which burnt the standing crop of the respondent in his land. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no negligence on the part of the petitioners and the compensation awarded by the PLA is exorbitant. The said contention is unsustainable and cannot be accepted in the light of the material placed on record. 6. As stated above, due to the negligent maintenance of the electric wires, the incident has taken place and the PLA at paragraph No.16 of the order, narrated how it has come to the conclusion that the respondent would be entitled for a compensation of ₹75,000/-. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14802 WP No. 106355 of 2014 7. I do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the PLA. Moreover, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not sit as an appellate authority and it would examine in its power of judicial scrutiny, the process of decision making. 8. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE VMB/sh CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 5