Madras High Court
B.Saraladevi vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 16 July, 2026
Author: S. M. Subramaniam
Bench: S. M. Subramaniam
REV.APPL Nos.77 & 76 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On: 19-06-2026
Delivered on: 16-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA
REV.APPL No. 77 of 2023
AND
REV.APPL NO. 76 OF 2023
B.Saraladevi
W/o. R. Boopalan, 115, Nadu Theru, Kizhanthur
Village and Post , Arakkonam Tk, Vellore Dist.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Government Of Tamilnadu
Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Fort st George,
Chennai
2. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd., No 144, Anna Salai, Chennai
600 002
3. The Superintending Engineer
Kanchipuram Electricity Distribution Circle,
Anna Malligai, Olimohamdpet, Kanchipuram
4. The Assistant Engineer
TNGEDCO, Tiruthani.
..Respondent(s)
REV.APPL No. 76 of 2023
B.Saraladevi
W/o.R.Boopalan, 115, Nadu Theru, Kizanthur
Village and Post, Arakkonam Taluk, Vellore
District
..Petitioner (s)
Vs
__________
Page1 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APPL Nos.77 & 76 of 2023
1. The Government Of Tamilnadu
rep by its Chief Secretary, Fort St.George
Chennai
2. The Chairman
Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution,
Corporation Ltd, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai
600002
3. The Superintending Engineer
Kanchipuram Electricity Distribution Circle,
Anna Malligai, Olimohamdpet, Kanchipuram
4. The Assistant Engineer
TNGEDCO, Tiruthani
..Respondent(s)
REV.APPL No. 77 of 2023
Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC read
with Section 114 of CPC, to Review the order passed in the above WA
No.1320/2022 dated 12.07.2022
REV.APPL No. 76 of 2023
Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC read
with Section 114 of CPC, to Review the order passed in the above WA
No.2424/2021 dated 12.07.2022
For Petitioner(s) in R.S. Anandan
both petitions: Shakila Anand
A.Niveditha
A.Niranjana
For Respondent(s): Chennai
__________
Page2 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APPL Nos.77 & 76 of 2023
COMMON ORDER
N.MALA, J.
(1) The review petitioner has filed the above review petitions challenging the
common judgment passed by this Court in WA.Nos.2424/2021 and
1320/2022 dated 12.07.2022.
(2) The facts leading to the filing of the review petitions are that the
petitioner’s husband, was standing near the bus stop with his two wheeler
and chatting with his colleague. While so, the transformer installed near
the bus stop exploded resulting in the death of the petitioner’s husband.
The petitioner alleging negligence of the respondent-Board in failing to
maintain the transformer properly, claimed damages and compensation
apart from claiming compassionate appointment by submitting a
representation to the respondents. Since the respondents did not respond,
the petitioner filed the writ petition in WP.No.18628/2017, claiming
compensation of Rs.28,40,000/- for the death of her husband on account
of the explosion of the transformer.
(3) The learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 15.03.2021,
allowed the writ petition by granting compensation of Rs.20,83,000/-,
with 7.5% interest from the date of representation dated 29.05.2017 till
the date of payment and payable within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of the order. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of
the learned Single Judge, the respondent/Board filed WA.No.2424/2021.
__________
Page3 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APPL Nos.77 & 76 of 2023
The petitioner also, not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the
learned Single Judge, preferred WA.No.1320/2022. Both the writ
appeals were taken up together for hearing and by a common judgment
dated 12.07.2022, the Division Bench of this Court, in which one of us
was a party [N.MALA, J], allowed the Writ Appeal [WA.No.2424/2021]
filed by the respondent/Board and dismissed the Writ Appeal
[WA.No.1320/2022] filed by the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the
common judgment passed in WA.Nos.2424/2021 and 1320/2022, the
petitioner is before this Court by way of the above review petitions.
(4) The learned counsel for the review petitioner made two fold submissions.
The learned counsel submitted that there was an error apparent on the
face of the record in the impugned order inasmuch as the Court
erroneously held that there was no bus stand or bus shelter near the
transformer where the deceased was allegedly standing at the time of the
explosion. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Single
Judge, having ordered compensation, it was unfair for the Division Bench
to have relegated the petitioner to the Civil Court, an admittedly long
drawn process, for getting compensation. The learned counsel for the
petitioner, in support of his submission that the Division Bench erred in
the finding that there was no bus stand or bus shelter near the transformer,
produced two photographs. The learned counsel, therefore prayed that the
revision petitions be allowed.
__________
Page4 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APPL Nos.77 & 76 of 2023
(5) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
materials placed on record.
(6) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was an error
apparent on the face of the record, inasmuch as this Court found that there
was no bus shelter near the transformer which exploded, resulting in the
death of the petitioner’s husband. The learned counsel submitted that this
factual error in the order is established by the two photographs produced
by him. The learned counsel submitted that in the photographs, a bench
is seen which establishes that the bus shelter was very much existing near
the transformer. A perusal of the photographs shows that they do no bear
any date or time and therefore, in our view, the photographs, by
themselves, cannot establish the existence of the bus stand.
(7) Moreover, the very fact that the respondent/Board disputed the existence
of the bus stand shows that it is a disputed fact which has to be proved in
a manner known to law and not by mere production of undated and
untimed photographs. The factum of death of the petitioner’s husband
due to the explosion of the transformer is not an issue. The real issue is
whether the negligence of the respondent/Board in maintaining the
transformer, resulted in the death of the petitioner’s husband. The
respondent/Board, in their counter, took a categorical stand that it was the
deceased who invited the accident by standing very close to the
transformer, despite the presence of a warning / danger board. The
__________
Page5 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APPL Nos.77 & 76 of 2023
further contention of the respondent/Board was that the explosion of the
transformer was not due to its negligence in maintaining it, but an act of
God, occasioned by the extreme summer temperatures. In our considered
view, in the absence of a rejoinder or a reply affidavit, denying the
aforesaid factual contentions of the respondent/Board, raised in their
counter, even assuming the photographs established the existence of the
bus stand, the fact in itself does not aid the case of the petitioner in view
of the dispute raised by the respondent/Board regarding negligence. We
therefore find that this Court was justified in relegating the petitioner to
the Civil Court to establish her claim for compensation.
(8) The learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the review
petition is filed since it is a matter of common experience that civil
disputes are often long drawn. In our view, the said contention is
untenable. Mere delay in conducting civil proceedings cannot be a reason
or ground for entertaining the review petition. The scope of review
jurisdiction is well established. The review petition cannot be entertained
unless and until an error apparent on the face of the record is established.
Even such error must be glaring, obvious and evident without having to
address extended arguments or fishing into the facts. It is well settled that
a review is not an appeal in disguise, whereby even an erroneous decision
will be re-heard and corrected.
__________
Page6 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APPL Nos.77 & 76 of 2023
(9) Therefore, we find absolutely no merit in the review petitions and
hence, the same are dismissed.
(10) Before parting with the case, we express our deep anguish at the growing
tendency of the litigants in approaching this Court for compensation for
death due to electrocution invoking Article 226 of the Constitution
despite the availability of an efficacious and alternate remedy of a civil
suit. The present case is a typical example of misuse of the said Article.
Undoubtedly, Part III of the Constitution is one of its salient features,
which provides for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights,
guaranteed by it. The Constitution, as we all know, is organic and the
jurisprudence of Fundamental Rights has evolved tremendously during its
growth. The Constitutional Courts have always lived up to the
exceptional requirements of the society by deviating from the traditional
understanding of its principles. In one of the earliest judgments, namely,
in the case of State of Madras Vs. V.G.Row, [AIR 1952 SC 196], the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, declared itself as watchful guardian of
the Fundamental Rights of its people. Over the years, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in a catena of judgments like Nilabati Behera Vs. State
of Orissa [1993 [2] SCC 746],D.K.Basu Vs. Union of India [1997 [1]
SCC 416] and Hindustan Papers Corporation Limited Vs. Anandha
Bhattacharjee [2004 [6] SCC 213], and other cases, discussed and
recognized the concept of public law remedy emanating from the
__________
Page7 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APPL Nos.77 & 76 of 2023
infringement of the Fundamental and Human Rights of the people.
(11) At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the following decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein compensation was either awarded or
the award thereof was confirmed for proven and undisputed violations of
the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution,
on the premise that such violations constituted a constitutional tort
warranting the public law remedy:-
(12) In Chairman, Railway Board, Vs. Chandima Das [AIR 2000 SC 988 :
2000 [2] SCC 465], award of compensation by the Hon’ble High Court
for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs to a Bangaldeshi National who was sexually
assaulted by an eastern Railway employee, was upheld by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
(13) In M.S.Grewal Vs. Deep Chand Sood [ AIR 2001 SC 3668 : 2001 [8]
SCC 151], the Apex Court awarded compensation for the unfortunate
death of 14 students who died due to drowning in a river, when they were
taken on an excursion by the School authorities.
(14) In MCD Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy[ 2005 [9] SCC
586], the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the Municipal Corporation of
Delhi, to deposit a sum of Rs.3,01,40,000/- for payment to the families of
the deceased who died in the Uphaar Theatre tragedy.
(15) In Delhi Jal Board Vs. National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of
Sewerage and Allied Workers [2011 AIR SCW 4916], the Apex Court
__________
Page8 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APPL Nos.77 & 76 of 2023enhanced the compensation awarded by the High Court to the families of
the sewerage workers who met with tragic death.
(16) In the above and other similar cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, not
only justified but also observed that it is obligatory for the Constitutional
Courts to entertain claim based on strict liability for infringement of
Fundamental Rights on the basis that such claims were distinct from and
in addition to the remedy under other laws for damages for the tortious
liability. Pertinently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, at the same time,
sounded a word of caution that it was not every violation of the
provisions of the Constitution or a statute which would enable the
Constitutional Courts to direct grant of compensation, but only in cases
where the Fundamental Rights of the citizens under Article 21 was
offended.
(17) Even this Court, in several cases awarded compensation to the families of
the victim who died under various circumstances like custodial death,
illegal rape and arrest, killing of medical student in Government Medical
College Hospital, etc.
(18) Undoubtedly, in the judgments mentioned above, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has categorically held that where death occurs due to infringement
of Article 21 of the Constitution, resort can be had to the public law
remedy for claiming compensation for the constitutional tort. However, a
careful survey of the judgments, rendered in electrocution cases discloses
__________
Page9 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APPL Nos.77 & 76 of 2023that Courts have adopted divergent approaches, each turning on the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
(19) In Mrs.Saroja Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu [2014 [3] CTC 553], a
Hon’ble Judge of this Court, awarded compensation for death of the
petitioner’s husband therein due to electrocution. So also in the case of
M.Gangachalam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, another learned
Single Judge of this Court awarded compensation for death of daughter of
an agricultural coolie due to snapping of an overhead electric line. The
learned Judge, in the latter case, relied on the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Chairman, TNEB and Another Vs.
Parvathi Ammal and 6 Others [2003 [4] CTC 517] ; Nirmal
Thirunavukkarasu and Others Vs. TNEB [1984 [97] LW 42] ; and
K.Sampath @ Chidambaranathan Vs. The Superintending Engineer-I,
Puducherry, [2013 W.L.R. 176].
(20) It is pertinent to mention here that in the judgments of Gangachalam and
Saroja‘s case [cited supra], the learned Judges found as a fact that the
negligence of the Electricity Board was established and therefore, in the
absence of any dispute as to the negligence, the learned Judges thought it
fit to entertain the writ petitions and granted compensation.
(21) However, in cases where negligence was disputed, the Courts have been
guarded in awarding compensation in Writ jurisdiction. We find from an
examination of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with
__________
Page10 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APPL Nos.77 & 76 of 2023particular reference to the electrocution cases, that the Apex Court in
cases where negligence was either admitted or established, awarded
compensation. But, in cases where negligence was disputed, did not
award any compensation.
(22) In Raman Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijili Vitran Nigam Limited and Others
[2015 AIR SCW 360], the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the judgment
of the High Court which awarded compensation of Rs.30 lakhs to the
parents of a four year old boy who died due to electrocution when came
in direct contact with the naked electric wire lying upon the roof of his
house. In the said case, the statutory negligence on the part of the
respondents therein in not providing the safety measures to see that the
live electric wires did not fall on the roof of the building were taken note
of while confirming the order of the High Court in granting
compensation.
(23) In Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. Shahil Kumari and Others
[2002 [2] sCC 162], the Hon’ble Supreme Court again granted
compensation for death due to electrocution due to snapping of a live
wire on the public road. Even in the said case, a finding on negligence
was recorded against the Board.
(24) In Chairman, GRID Corporation of Orissa Limited and Others Vs.
Smt.Sukamani Das and Another reported in AIR 1999 SC 3412 : 1999
[7] SCC 298, the Hon’ble Supreme Court framed the following issues:-
__________
Page11 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APPL Nos.77 & 76 of 2023‘’[1]Can the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution, award compensation for the death
caused due to electrocution on account of improper
maintenance of electric wires or equipment by the
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the appellant ; and
[2]Whether the High Court while exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
appoint an arbitrator under the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 [New Act] to decide the
quantum of compensation and then make the Award of
the arbitrator Rule of the Court?’’
and held that:-
‘’In our opinion, the High Court committed an
error in entertaining the wit petition as it was not a fit
case for exercising power under Article 226 of the
Constitution…..’’
(25) So also, in Shakuntala Devi Vs. Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking,reported in 1995 [2] SCC 369, the Apex Court, while entertaining a writ
petition for payment of compensation under Article 32 of the
Constitution, in a case of death by electrocution, observed that ‘’the
question of negligence of officials of the 1 st respondent can be properly
examined in a suit where correct facts can be established.’’. In the said
case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the respondents therein to
make payment of reasonable amount as ex-gratia, exercising its power
under Article 142 of the Constitution and that too, because the
__________
Page12 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APPL Nos.77 & 76 of 2023respondents had agreed to that course being adopted. Pertinently, even in
the present case, this Court in the writ appeal, had directed the
respondent/Board to pay ex-gratia amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the victim
as per the Rules of TANGEDCO.
(26) In S.D.O.Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited and Others Vs. Timudu
Oram, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3971 : 2005 [6] SCC 156, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, while answering the question whether the High Court
was justified in exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution
for awarding compensation to the respondents therein, even though the
appellants therein had denied the liability on the ground that the death had
not occurred as a result of their negligence, but because of the negligence
of the respondents themselves, or an act of God, or an act of some other
person, following the judgment in Sukamani Das case, held that the High
Court had committed an error in entertaining the writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution, considering that there were disputed
questions of fact regarding negligence and for which, the appellants
therein deserved an opportunity to prove that proper care and precautions
were taken in maintaining the transmission lines and yet, the wires had
snapped because of the circumstances beyond their control or
unauthorised intervention of third parties.
(27) In Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs. Sumathy and Others, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that the law laid down in Sukamani Das case,
__________
Page13 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APPL Nos.77 & 76 of 2023cannot be understood as laying a law that in every case of tortious
liability recourse must be had to a suit. The Apex Court held that when
negligence is established on the face of it and an infringement of Article
21 is made out, there would be no bar to proceed under Article 226 of t he
Constitution since right to life is one of the basic rights guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution. Having held so, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court also observed that the High Court has some self imposed
limitations in exercise of its jurisdiction and therefore, it would not
interfere when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available or
when there is an established procedure to remedy a wrong to enforce a
right.
(28) From the judgments in Sukamani Das case, Shakunthala Devi case,
Thimudu Oram Case and Sumathy and others’ case, it is clear that
where negligence was disputed, the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to
award compensation on the premise that the Electricity Board, deserved
an opportunity to prove that it was not negligent in discharge of its duties.
We are therefore of the view that, it is not in every case that the normal
channel of civil and criminal litigation can be by-passed, since the High
Court, in the words of the Apex Court ‘’does not act as a proverbial bull
in a China shop in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution’’.
__________
Page14 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APPL Nos.77 & 76 of 2023
(29) The sum and substance of the aforesaid discussions is that the public law
remedy for grant of compensation can be resorted to only when the
Human and Fundamental Rights of the citizens under Article 21 is
violated and when negligence is either admitted or established.
Sometimes, under the factual situations, the principles of res ipsa
loquitor may also be invoked for awarding compensation under Article
226 proceedings. We are therefore of the considered view that, only
when it is established that the State and its organs failed in their requisite
duty of protecting the safety of its citizens, the right to claim
compensation under public law remedy for violation of the Fundamental
Rights arises. When the loss of life is attributable to the State’s
negligence in taking requisite safety measures, the question of
compensation becomes an issue not because of the loss of an individual
life, but because of the involvement of the larger public interest of the
State’s promised safety and dignified living conditions of its citizens.
(30) In the light of the above discussions, we are of the view that the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to
entertain writ petitions for payment of compensation for death due to
electrocution, cannot be agitated before a Writ court, where negligence is
seriously disputed. Where negligence is seriously the respondent should
be given an opportunity to prove that the death did not occur due to their
negligence .
__________
Page15 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APPL Nos.77 & 76 of 2023
(31) To sum up, we are the view that where there are disputed questions of
fact emanating out of a clear denial of the negligence, the remedy under
Article 226 is not proper and that it is only the Civil Court which will be
the proper Forum since only before it, evidence can be led and
appreciated by applying the principles of law of evidence.
(32) In fine, the review petitions are dismissed. No costs.
(S.M.S.,J.) (N.M.,J.)
16-07-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AP
To
1. The Chief Secretary,
Government Of Tamilnadu
Fort st George, Chennai
2. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd., No 144, Anna Salai, Chennai
600 002
3. The Superintending Engineer
Kanchipuram Electricity Distribution Circle,
Anna Malligai, Olimohamdpet, Kanchipuram
4. The Assistant Engineer
TNGEDCO, Tiruthani.
__________
Page16 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
REV.APPL Nos.77 & 76 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.
AND
N.MALA J.
AP
Common Order in
REV.APPL No. 77 of 2023
AND
REV.APPL NO. 76 OF 2023
16.07.2026
__________
Page17 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
