Cuttack, Aug. 10: Orissa High Court has asked the state government what remedial measures it had taken for minimising the alarming number of lightning casualties in the state.

The court sought the reply in response to a PIL filed by Dinabandhu Mishra, an 86-year-old retired chief engineer, following 34 lightning strike deaths between July 31 and August 1.

The rate of lightning strike casualties in Odisha is the country's highest. At least 257 people have been killed by lightning strikes so far this year. The state recorded 401 lightning strike deaths in 2015-16 and 398 deaths in 2016-17 as compared to a total of 2,000 deaths reported in the country every year.

In his petition, the retired chief engineer said the victims of lightning were mostly farmers and agricultural labourers who worked in open fields, apart from fishermen and commuters, and suggested remedial measures.

"In the past 15 years, the state has lost more than 4,000 people due to lightning strikes in the 30 districts," the petition, which came up yesterday, said.

"After a preliminary hearing, the division bench of the chief justice and Justice K.R. Mohapatra posted the matter for hearing along with the reply of the Odisha State Disaster Management Authority (OSDMA)," petitioner counsel Kiranbala Roychoudhury said today.

"Accordingly, the court issued notice to the managing director of the OSDMA. The court also issued notice to the secretary of the disaster management division of the Union ministry of home affairs," Roychoudhury said.

According to the petition, the Centre has set up a high altitude "cloud observatory" near Munnar in Kerala to predict lightning in the region. It is to be followed by setting up eight such well-equipped stations between Kanyakumari and Mangalore in the Western Ghats. India has similar facilities at Mahabaleswar in Maharastra.

"But, it is a matter of regret that Odisha, with about 300 deaths a year, does not possess similar facility to inform local administration and people about ensuing lightning strikes," said Mishra.

In his petition, he claimed that the PIL was "essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and disadvantaged, helpless with economic and social disabilities that could not approach the court for relief".