Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010237012024 2026:GAU-AS:5395 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6094/2024 NOIZAL UDDIN @ NOIJAL UDDIN AND ANR S/O- LATE AMAT ALI SK 2: KHAIJAN NESSA BIBI W/O- NOIZAL UDDIN @ NOIJAL UDDIN BOTH ARE R/O- VILLAGE- KATHALDI PART I P.S- BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF POWER, DISPUR , GUWAHATI-06 2:THE ASSAM POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED (APDCL) REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN BIJULEE BHAWAN GUWAHATI- 781001 3:THE ASSAM POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED (APDCL) REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BIJULEE BHAWAN GUWAHATI- 781001 4:THE SDE (ELECTRICAL) BILASIPARA ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION P.O- BILASIPARA PIN-783348 Page No.# 2/5 DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHUBRI P.O- DHUBRI PIN-783301 DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM 6:THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR/INSPECTORS ASSAM INSPECTOR OF ELECTRICITY WEST END BLOCK 1ST FLOOR HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI-0 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R AGARWALA, MR. A R AGARWALA,MR ADITYA AGARWALA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, W AHMED,MS. S KONWAR,MR. A R AGARWALA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 20-04-2026 Heard Mr. A. R. Agarwala, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. M. Barman, learned State counsel appearing respondent No. 6 as well as Mr. W. Ahmed, learned Standing counsel for APDCL. 2. The petitioners’ case is that on 04.04.2018, at about 11:30 a.m., the petitioners’ son, namely Abdul Malik, came into contact with a live electrical wire while he was working in a cultivated field. Upon coming into contact with the live wire of the L.T. line passing over the cultivated field, that fell down in the field, he was electrocuted and died on spot. The petitioners contended that without proper safety measures, the departmental authorities including APDCL, Page No.# 3/5 had installed the aforesaid electrical line and due to the negligence of the respondent authorities, the petitioners’ son died by electrocution. 3. The incident was investigated by the police, vide Bilasipara Police U/D Case No. 07/2018, and the police submitted a report dated 04.04.2018, which reveals that the petitioners’ son died due to the falling of an electric wire in a cultivated field. 4. Ms. Barman, learned State counsel appearing for respondent No. 6, submits that the instant writ petition is not maintainable, as on an earlier occasion, for the same cause of action, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 3261 of 2020, which was withdrawn and no liberty was granted by this Court to the petitioners to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. 5. It is seen that an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by respondent No. 6 in the instant case, which contains the Electrical Accident Enquiry Report dated 01.03.2025, submitted by the Chief Electrical Inspector-cum-Advisor, Government of Assam. 6. It is seen from the aforesaid report that the cause leading to the accident was, in fact, that the victim was unauthorisedly attempting to fix and reconnect a live low-voltage overhead electric service wire to his residence without informing the concerned authority of APDCL. As a result, the victim came into contact with the live overhead electric service wire and received a fatal electric shock, leading to his death on the spot. Therefore, the incident appears to have occurred due to the negligence of the victim rather than any attribution of fault on the part of the respondent authorities. 7. Be that as it may, it is seen that there is no statement regarding the filing of the earlier writ petition, being WP(C) No. 3261 of 2020, made by the Page No.# 4/5 petitioners in the instant petition. There is also no mention of the Electrical Accident Enquiry Report. In this connection, it may be relevant to extract hereinbelow the operative part of the order dated 17.02.2022 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 3261 of 2020. "The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw this writ petition. The prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner is vehemently opposed by the learned standing counsel for the APDCL. In this regard, reliance is placed on Electrical Accident Enquiry Report (Annexure A to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.8), wherein it has been mentioned that the deceased had attempted to run an electric motor pump set-up illegally at paddy field and suddenly he came to contact with live bare wire and was electrocuted and it was recorded therein that intention of the deceased to get the power supply to electric motor pump set-up by hooking from low voltage overhead line for irrigation purposes. Accordingly, it is submitted that as this was a clear case of power theft, the learned standing counsel for the APDCL opposes the prayer of the petitioner to withdraw this writ petition. Be that as it may, as the petitioner seeks to withdraw this writ petition, the prayer is allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed on withdrawal." 8. It is discernible from the above that the Electrical Accident Enquiry Report dated 01.03.2025 was placed before this Court while the earlier petition was being heard and on the basis of the same as well as the pleadings available in the writ petition, this Court had passed the aforesaid order permitting the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. However, no liberty was granted to the petitioners to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action. Page No.# 5/5 9. The instant writ petition has been filed on the same cause of action by the same parties, seeking the same relief without disclosing either the filing of the earlier writ petition or the order dated 17.02.2022 passed therein. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioners have approached this Court again on the same cause of action without mentioning about the earlier petition, which is wholly undesirable. 10. Taking into account the facts as narrated above, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition and the same stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant