Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010210702022 2026:GAU-AS:1361- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7297/2022 MD REZZAK ALI @ REZZAK KHAN AND 3 ORS S/O. NABU KHAN (FATHER OF VICTIM SAIDUL ISLAM @ SAIDUR KHAN), VILL. AMGURI, P.O. AND P.S. KALGASIA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781319. 2: MD. OMAR ALI @ OMAR KHAN S/O. MAHAMMAD (FATHER OF VICTIM ABDUL RASID) VILL. AMGURI P.O. AND P.S. KALGASIA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781319. 3: MD. MANOWAR HUSSAIN @ MANOWAR KHAN S/O. MUGBUL (FATHER OF VICTIM ABDUL HALIM @ HALIM KHAN) VILL. AMGURI P.O. AND P.S. KALGASIA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781319. 4: JANGSHER ALI @ JANGSHER KHAN S/O. MOHAMMAD ALI (FATHER OF VICTIM RAKIBUL ISALM @ RAKIBUL HUSSAI) VILL. AMGURI P.O. AND P.S. KALGASIA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781319 VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY / COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE Page No.# 2/11 GOVT OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS DEPTT. OF POWER (ELECTRIC), DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. (APDCL) REP. BY CHAIRMAN BIJULIEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-781001. 3:THE DIRECTOR ASSAM ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION A.S.E.B. CAMPUS DWARANDHAR G.S. ROAD SIXTH MILE GUWAHATI-781001. 4:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (D) LAR ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. (APDCL) BIJULIEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-781001. 5:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (LAW) ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. (APDCL) BIJULIEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-781001. 6:THE ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER BARPETA ELECTRIC DIVISION ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. (APDCL) BARPETA. 7:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BARPETA ELECTRIC CIRCLE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. (APDCL) BARPETA. 8:THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR/ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS Page No.# 3/11 ASSAM INSPECTORATE OF ELECTRICITY WEST END BLOCK 1ST FLOOR HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI PIN-781006 Advocate for the Petitioner : G UDDIN, MR. A UDDIN,MS. P ADHIKARI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, MR. P N GOSWAMI, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL, ASSAM,MR S P DAS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 03.02.2026 (K. Goswami, J) Heard Mr. G Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam and Mr. S P Das, learned Standing counsel, Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission (AERC) for the respondents. 2. The petitioners are the fathers of four minor children, namely, (i) Saidul Islam @ Saidur Khan, (ii) Abdul Rasid, (iii) Abdul Halim @ Halim Khan and (iv) Rakibul Isalm @ Rakibul Hussain, all residents of village-Amgurigaon, District- Barpeta who died on 17.07.2016 due to electrocution when an 11 KV live electric line snapped and fell over while the children were crossing the Mora Beki River by a bhur (boat made up from banana tree). All the four children Page No.# 4/11 were brought to the Barpeta Civil Hospital, Kalgachia, where the doctor declared them dead. The tragic occurrence is not in dispute. It is stated that an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- each has already been paid in phases to the families. 3. The present writ petition challenges the quantum of compensation fixed under the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission (Compensation to Victims of Electrical Accidents) Regulations, 2019 [hereinafter referred to as the AERC Regulations], framed by the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission. Under the Regulations, compensation for loss of human life in an electrical accident is prescribed at Rs. 4,00,000/- per person. 4. The sole contention of the petitioners is that the said amount is inadequate, arbitrary and unreasonable, particularly when compared with compensation awarded in other forms of fatal accidents. A prayer is made for enhancement to Rs. 50 lakhs per victim. In support of the aforesaid prayer, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted a chart before this Court showing the compensation amount provided by various States in respect of fatalities resulting from electrical accidents to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 5. The respondents on the other hand, submit that the impugned Regulations are statutory in character, framed under powers conferred by the Electricity Act, 2003 [hereinafter referred to as the said 2003 Act], and cannot be struck down merely on the ground that the compensation amount appears low or inadequate. 6. The only issue requiring determination is whether the writ court can invalidate or modify a statutory Regulation solely on the ground that the quantum of compensation fixed therein is inadequate or unreasonable. 7. At the outset, it is apposite to notice the relevant provisions of the said Page No.# 5/11 2003 Act, which form the legislative foundation of the impugned Regulations. 8. Section 2(4) of the said 2003 Act defines “Appropriate Commission” to mean the Central Regulatory Commission under Section 76, the State Regulatory Commission under Section 82, or a Joint Commission under Section 83. Section 82 mandates that every State Government shall constitute a State Electricity Regulatory Commission. 9. It is an admitted position that the State Government has constituted the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission (AERC) under Section 82 of the said 2003 Act. 10. Section 2(39) of the said 2003 Act defines “licensee” as a person granted a licence under Section 14. Section 14 empowers the Appropriate Commission to grant licences for transmission, distribution, or trading of electricity. It is also not in dispute that Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as APDCL), respondent No. 2, is the State distribution utility and a licensee under the said 2003 Act. 11. Section 57 of the said 2003 Act, which is central to the present controversy, provides: - “57. Standards of performance of licensee.— (1) The Appropriate Commission may specify standards of performance of a licensee. (2) If a licensee fails to meet the standards, he shall be liable to pay such compensation to the person affected as may be determined by the Appropriate Commission. (3) Such compensation shall be paid within ninety days.” This provision confers statutory authority upon the Regulatory Commission to determine compensation. Page No.# 6/11 12. In exercise of its statutory powers, the AERC framed the AERC Regulations, applicable throughout Assam. 12A. Regulation 5 provides that a licensee/generating company shall be liable to pay compensation where the electrical accident is attributable to its fault or negligence. 12B. Regulation 6 stipulates that the quantum of compensation is provided in Schedule–B, which prescribes: “The compensation payable for loss of human life as a result of an electrical accident: Rs. 4.00 lakhs per person.” 12C. It requires emphasis that this amount is a statutory prescription forming part of subordinate legislation, traceable to Section 57(2) of the said 2003 Act. It is not an executive or administrative figure. 12D. Regulation 9 clarifies that compensation under the Regulations does not affect other legal remedies. 12E. Regulation 11 expressly empowers the Commission to revise the quantum of compensation by notification after due process. This demonstrates that the amount is a policy determination and that the legislature has provided an inbuilt revision mechanism and enhancement of compensation is within the regulatory domain. 12F. That apart, Regulation 21 provides that disputes regarding entitlement or quantum may be raised before the Ombudsman under consumer grievance regulations. Crucially, it further clarifies that: “Notwithstanding the above, the aggrieved person may approach a civil Page No.# 7/11 court”. Thus, the Regulatory scheme itself preserves civil remedy. 13. Upon analyzing the provisions of the said 2003 Act and the AERC Regulations, it is evident that the said Regulations have been created by a statutory Regulatory Commission through an enabling Act. Hence, the said Regulations are subordinate legislation. Therefore, the said quantum of compensation forming part of the Schedule to the said Regulations is statutory in nature. That being so, determination of compensation in matters of failure of performance standards is a statutorily entrusted function of the Regulatory Commission. 14. Viewed thus, the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- prescribed in the impugned Regulations for loss of human life is not an administrative or executive determination, but a statutory prescription forming part of subordinate legislation. Once such determination is incorporated into the duly framed Regulations, the amount assumes statutory force and stands on the same footing as any other binding norm under delegated legislation. 15. The parameters for judicial review of a statute or subordinate legislation are extremely limited. The Court’s exercising judicial review cannot substitute such legislatively determined quantum with an alternative figure based on perceived adequacy. In other words, the Court does not sit in appeal over legislative wisdom. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. -Vs.- McDowell & Co., reported in (1996) 3 SCC 709, held that a law can be struck down only on two grounds, i.e., (i) lack of legislative competence; or (ii) Violation of fundamental rights or constitutional provisions. Page No.# 8/11 Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment read as under – “………………………... In India, the position is similar to the United States of America. The power of Parliament or for that matter, the State Legislatures is restricted in two ways. A law made by Parliament or the legislature can be struck down by courts on two grounds and two grounds alone, viz., (1) lack of legislative competence and (2) violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or of any other constitutional provision. There is no third ground. We do not wish to enter into a discussion of the concepts of procedural unreasonableness and substantive unreasonableness concepts inspired by the decisions of United States Supreme Court. Even in U.S.A., these concepts and in particular the concept of substantive due process have proved to be of unending controversy, the latest thinking tending towards a severe curtailment of this ground (substantive due process). The main criticism against the ground of substantive due process being that it seeks to set up the courts as arbiters of the wisdom of the legislature in enacting the particular piece of legislation. It is enough for us to say that by whatever name it is characterised, the ground of invalidation must fall within the four corners of the two grounds mentioned above. In other words, say, if an enactment is challenged as violative of Article 14, it can be struck down only if it is found that it is violative of the equality clause/equal protection clause enshrined therein. Similarly, if an enactment is challenged as violative of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by sub-clauses (a) to (g) of Article 19(1), it can be struck down only if it is found not saved by any of the clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 and so on. No enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable. Some or other constitutional infirmity has to be found before invalidating an Act. An enactment cannot be struck down on the ground that court thinks it unjustified. Parliament and the legislatures, composed as they are of the representatives of the people, are supposed to know and be aware of the needs of the people and what is good and bad for them. The court cannot sit in judgment over their wisdom. In this connection. it should be remembered that even in the case of administrative action, the scope of judicial review is limited to three grounds. viz.. (1) unreasonableness, which can more appropriately be called irrationality, (7) illegality and (iii) procedural impropriety (see Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Services which decision has been accepted by this Court as well). The applicability of doctrine of proportionality even in administrative law sphere is yet a debatable issue. (See the opinions of Lords Lowry and Ackner in R. v. Secv. of State Page No.# 9/11 for Home Deptt., ex p Brind AC at 766-67 and 762.) It would be rather odd if an enactment were to be struck down by applying the said principle when its applicability even in administrative law sphere is not fully and finally settled. It is one thing to say that a restriction imposed upon a fundamental right can be struck down if it is disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable and quite another thing to say that the court can strike down enactment if it thinks it unreasonable. unnecessary or unwarranted." As a corollary to the above, it is apparent that a law cannot be invalidated merely on the ground that it is unreasonable or arbitrary in the abstract sense. Courts cannot rewrite or reframe a statutory provision because a different policy choice appears preferable. It is well settled law that subordinate legislation has, if validly made, the full force and effect of a statute (Refer: Sukhdev Singh & Ors. -Vs- Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi & Anr, (1975) 1 SCC 421). The doctrine of ultra virus as applied to statutes applies equally to Regulations framed under the statutory provisions. 17. We are thus of the unhesitant view that the AERC Regulations have the force of law. In the present case, legislative competence of AERC is not challenged, no violation of fundamental rights is pleaded or established and no procedural illegality in framing the Regulations is shown. The entire challenge rests solely on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. 18. Determination of the quantum of compensation under a regulatory scheme involves the financial capacity of the utility, uniformity of application, actuarial and administrative considerations and balancing of public interest with fiscal sustainability. These are policy matters within the domain of the regulator. 19. The chart produced by the petitioners themselves shows that compensation in various States ranges from Rs. 4 to Rs. 10 lakhs. Variation in policy across States does not render one State’s Regulations unconstitutional. In Page No.# 10/11 other words, variation of compensation across States does not render the Assam Regulations unconstitutional. This Court cannot assume the role of the regulator and fix a different compensation figure. Such an exercise would amount to judicial legislation, which is impermissible. Compassion for the bereaved families cannot justify transgressing constitutional limits on judicial power. 20. In view of the above, this Court finds that the AERC Regulations are statutory in nature and no constitutional infirmity is demonstrated. Further, mere inadequacy of the compensation amount is not a ground to strike down or modify the Regulations. 21. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 22. No order as to costs. 23. However, it is noted that the prescribed compensation under the Regulations is Rs. 4,00,000/- per deceased person. To the extent that such amount has not been fully disbursed to the petitioners, the competent authority shall ensure that the balance, if any, is paid within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 24. It is needless to be clarified that the statutory compensation under the impugned Regulations does not bar a civil suit for damages. The amount under the Regulations shall not operate as a ceiling. If negligence or breach of statutory duty is established, a competent civil court may determine damages independently and the amount of compensation already paid under the impugned AERC Regulations shall be liable to be duly adjusted and deducted from the compensation that may be awarded so as to avoid double payment in terms of the regulatory scheme. Page No.# 11/11 JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant