JUDGMENT D. Raju, CJ.—The above writ petition has been filed by the father of one Vijay Kumar aged about 11 years, who, it is stated, was studying in 1991 in 6th standard in Government High School, Gagal, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. The circumstances which led to the filing of this writ petition are that late Vijay Kumar, the son of the petitioner appears to have complained of some stomach-ache and pain in legs on 17.1.1991, that he was found also to be running with High temperature, and therefore, taken to the Government Ayurvedic Dispensary at Gagal. After initial treatment since he did not show any sign of improvement, on 21.1.1991, it is stated that the boy was taken to Civil Hospital at Mandi, where he was admitted in the Children Ward as indoor patient and remained under treatment. It is further stated that he remained as indoor patient in the General Ward between 21.1.1991 and 23.1.1991 5 p.m. and thereafter shifted to the private ward in the Hospital. The details are also given about the names of the Doctors, who treated the boy from time to time as also about the Female Health Workers attending on the boy. As misfortune would have it, on 27.1.1991 at 2 p.m. the boy expired and complaining of negligent and reckless treatment in applying and injecting glucose, the above writ petition has been filed claiming a compensation of Rs. 2 lacs by way of damages on account of the death of the son of the petitioner. The notice under Section 80, C.P.C. dated 10.6.1991 appears to have been sent. The State of Himachal Pradesh through its Secretary has been impleaded as the first respondent, the Director of Health Services being the second respondent and the Chief Medical Officer, Zonal Hospital, Mandi, being the third respondent. It may be pointed out even at this stage that neither the Doctors, who were attending on him or the Female Health Workers who were supposed to have allegedly applied glucose in a negligent and reckless manner resulting in the death of the son of the petitioner, have been impleaded as party-respondents. 2. It may be pointed out even at this stage that neither the Doctors, who were attending on him or the Female Health Workers who were supposed to have allegedly applied glucose in a negligent and reckless manner resulting in the death of the son of the petitioner, have been impleaded as party-respondents. 2. We find from the records pertaining to the case that when the matter initially came up before the Court on 22.9.1992, the then learned Chief Justice and the learned Judge, who constituted the Bench, recorded the fact that the matter in question raised in the writ petition is really a matter for a civil suit and that the Counsel should be ready to substantiate the question relating to the entertainment of the writ petition. Even by the time the said thing could be made out a direction has emanated from this Court to the State to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 Lac, in the Registry, which has been complied with and the said amount was directed to be deposited in a fixed deposit receipt pending disposal of the writ petition. The attempt made by the petitioner on two occasions to secure payment has been rejected on the ground that only after the disposal of the writ petition at the final stage any such order could be made. 3. While matters stood thus, the Director of Health Services, the second respondent, has filed a reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 not only disputing the factual claims alleging negligence and reckless treatment of the son of the petitioner and disputing further the claim of compensation but a preliminary objection has also been taken contending that the subject-matter of the claim is not and could not be in the form of or espoused through the means of a writ petition invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that since the disputed questions of fact and the positive proof of alleged negligence have to be proved by letting in evidence besides substantiating that it is on account of the so-called negligent and reckless treatment that the boy ultimately died, such questions cannot be projected, pursued or vindicated in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A supplemental affidavit has also been filed by the Deputy Director of Health Services explaining date-wise details of the advice as well as the treatment accorded to the son of the petitioner. 4. Mr. Gopal Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in dealing with the preliminary objection taken on behalf of the respondents placed strong reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1993 (1) Shim L.C. 340, Mohan Lai v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, and also the decision of the apex Court reported in AIR 1992 S.C. 2069, Smt Kumari v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, and contended that the relief, as prayed for, could be granted even in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the merits, as to the quantum of compensation reliance was placed on the decision reported in AIR 1990 S.C, 513, Saheli, a Womens Resources Centre v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and others, to contend that this Court itself can award monetary compensation by fixing a sum commensurate to the loss caused to the petitioner. 5. Per contra, the learned Advocate-General invited our attention to a decision of the apex Court reported in 1991 Supp. (1) S.C.C. 300, Neelu Sarin v. Union of India and others, and an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.) was a party, rendered in C.W.P. No. 535 of 1993 on 23.12.1996, Hem Lata v. State of H.R and others, and contended that the ratio of the decisions relied upon for the petitioner will have no relevance to the case in hand wherein the alleged negligence or recklessness in the treatment has to be specifically substantiated by proper and sufficient evidence in accordance with law and that on the other hand, the decisions relied upon by him for the respondents would squarely govern the case against the petitioner in the present matter. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side. The learned Advocate-General, in our view, was justified in his stand that the decisions relied upon for the petitioner and the course adopted therein turned on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case wherein the factual matters furnishing the cause of action was almost beyond controversy and a foregone conclusion. The decision reported in 1993(1) Sim. The learned Advocate-General, in our view, was justified in his stand that the decisions relied upon for the petitioner and the course adopted therein turned on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case wherein the factual matters furnishing the cause of action was almost beyond controversy and a foregone conclusion. The decision reported in 1993(1) Sim. L.C. 340, related to the claim of compensation made by the petitioner, who met with an accident and sustained injuries as a result thereof. The nature and manner of the accident being that the driver and the conductor of the Bus belonging to the Transport Corporation—A State undertaking of the Government, had lit fire beneath the diesel tank, on account of which the diesel tank burst and caught fire and engulfed the petitioner as well as the conductor of the Bus. As a matter of fact in paragraph 6 of the said judgment, we find it stated that on merits, it has been admitted that the fire was lit underneath the diesel tank of the bus as a result of which the diesel tank got burst and the conductor of the bus who suffered injuries along with the petitioner died subsequently and his heirs have since have been compensated for the same and it is in such circumstances the Court came to consider and adjudicate on the claim made therein. Even that apart the various decisions referred to and relied upon for awarding compensation in that case by the Division Bench would equally go to show that the basic issue about the manner in which the loss has been caused or deprivation of the fundamental rights was effected was not seriously in dispute and was almost an admitted and settled fact requiring no further detailed verification or proof on facts. The decision in AIR 1983 S.C. 1086, Rudul Saha v. State of Bihar and another, was in the context of a claim for compensation for deprivation of fundamental rights of life and liberty. The decision in AIR 1987 SC 1086, M.C. Mehta and another v. Union of India and others, also was in similar context. The decision in AIR 1990 S.C. 513 (supra) was in the context of a claim for damages for bodily harm on account of assault by the police in the course of enforcement of law and order. The decision in AIR 1987 SC 1086, M.C. Mehta and another v. Union of India and others, also was in similar context. The decision in AIR 1990 S.C. 513 (supra) was in the context of a claim for damages for bodily harm on account of assault by the police in the course of enforcement of law and order. The decision in AIR 1992 S.C. 2069, Smt Kumari v. State of Tamil Nadu, is in the context of the claimants son meeting with a death as a result of falling in 10 ft. deep sewerage tank in the City of Madras. Even in the earlier decision of this Court reported in ILR H.P. 373, Kalawati and others v. State of H.R and another, the learned Judges have indicated that if at all resort to file a writ for similar and such relief for compensation can be had it could be only if on the materials on record, if a suit were to be filed to recover the damages, a decree would follow as a matter of course, although the precise amount which would be decreed cannot be predicted. The other decisions noticed by the Division Bench also are merely cases of like nature where there was hardly any scope for even disputing the basic facts which formed the subject-matter of a claim for compensation. The same, in our view, cannot be said to be the case before us. The plea of alleged negligence or recklessness made in the treatment given to the son of the petitioner, which is disputed by the respondents, has got to be proved as a fact in the manner known to and in accordance with law before the claim of the petitioner could ever be countenanced leave alone the quantum thereof and such factual questions, particularly, which are seriously in dispute and which require strong supporting materials to prove such allegations cannot properly or justifiably be undertaken in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We find that in the decision reported in 1991 Supp. We find that in the decision reported in 1991 Supp. (1) S.C.C. 300 (supra), the apex Court turned down a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India claiming compensation on the ground of Doctors alleged negligence in treating a patient for the reason that the basic facts constituting negligence since were disputed and it necessitated an investigation into the disputed questions of fact the exercise cannot be undertaken in a writ petition. Same view has been taken in an unreported decision of a Division of this Court in CWP No. 535 of 1993, wherein Sri. M. Srinivasan, J., the learned Chief Justice as his Lordship then was, speaking for the Bench, repelled a similar claim based on alleged medical negligence and in doing so the Division Bench followed its earlier Division Bench judgment in CWP No. 2355/95, Man Singh v. State of H.R and others. As a matter of fact the portion of the amount of compensation paid as an interim measure has also been directed to be returned and re-paid by the claimant in that case. 7. In view of the above, we are of the view that the writ petitioner has misconceived his remedies in filing the writ petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly, when the merit or otherwise of the claim or its proof very much depends upon substantiating seriously disputed factual issues, which require to be proved and substantiated on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence that may be adduced by either of the parties. On this ground alone since it would be in appropriate and impracticable as also in impermissible to do so by this Court, we decline to interfere in the matter and dismiss the writ petition. The dismissal of this writ petition shall not stand in the way of the petitioner, if so desired to vindicate his claims and rights in an appropriate proceeding before an appropriate forum in accordance with law and as and when such proceedings are initiated, such forum or authority shall consider the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the material that may be produced before it in accordance with law and in any manner uninfluenced by the dismissal of this writ petition. 8. 8. The amount deposited by the respondents to the credit of the proceeding in this Court shall be returned to the respondents alongwith the interest accrued thereon as lying in the fixed deposit receipt, which, it is seen matures on 28.9.98, by taking appropriate action in this regard by the Registry. No costs. Petition dismissed.