Court advises petitioner to seek appropriate legal remedy for disputed facts involving alleged negligence by the electricity department.
In a recent judgment delivered by the Allahabad High Court, a writ petition filed by Mohd Rafeek seeking compensation for damages caused by a fire incident was dismissed. The petitioner had claimed that the fire, which resulted in significant damage to his shop and go-down, was caused by the negligence of the electricity department. Specifically, Rafeek alleged that a transformer installed by the electricity department in front of his shop caught fire, leading to the subsequent damages.
The petitioner sought a compensation of Rs. 55 lakhs and requested the court to direct the Managing Director of Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. to ensure payment. The petitioner also sought a direction for the Managing Director to decide on his representation regarding the compensation within a stipulated period.
The bench comprising Justices Saral Srivastava and Sudhanshu Chauhan heard arguments from the counsel representing both the petitioner and respondents. It was noted that the case involved disputed questions of fact, particularly regarding the extent of damages and the cause of the fire. The court emphasized that such matters require detailed examination of evidence, which cannot be undertaken within writ jurisdiction.
Referring to Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court highlighted that writ petitions are not the appropriate mechanism for adjudicating disputes that necessitate factual determinations through evidence. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the court granted Rafeek the liberty to pursue other legal remedies available under the law to address his grievances.
The judgment underscores the limitations of the writ jurisdiction in handling cases that involve complex factual disputes. It serves as a reminder for individuals seeking redress for grievances involving negligence and damages to consider appropriate legal avenues that accommodate evidence-based adjudication.
Bottom Line:
A writ petition claiming compensation for damages caused due to fire, allegedly arising from the negligence of the electricity department, involves disputed questions of fact that cannot be adjudicated by the High Court under writ jurisdiction.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226, Constitution of India, 1950
Mohd Rafeek v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2825989
