ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the respondents for the death of their son, J. Narendra Kumar on 29th October 2000 in a swimming pool at Ulsoor belonging to Respondent No.1 and maintained by Respondent No.2. 2. I have heared the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents produced. 3. The case of the petitioners is that on 29th October 2000 the deceased J. Narendra Kumar along with his brother had been to the swiming pool at Ulsoor for swimming and while so swimming Narendra Kumar drowned and at that time Respondent Nos. 3 & 4, who were working as Instructors in the said swimming pool and who were expected to be present there to save the life of swimmers were absent and in view of their absence, the petitioners—son met with an accidental death and hence the petitioners are entitled for compensation as claimed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the death of the petitioners son was only due to the negligence on the part of Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 in not remaining present at the swimming pool when the petitioners—son was drowing and therefore the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 5. It is relevant to refer to paragraph 6 of the statement of objections filed by Respondent No.2, who was entrusted with the maintenance of the swimming pool by Respondent No.1 Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. 6. It is respectfully submitted that the averment made in the writ petition that the respondents 3 and 4 were absent at the time of the incident is false. The complaint lodged by the brother of the deceased who was present at the swimming pool clearly show that Life Guard has rushed to the spot and it is he who has brought out Narendra Kumar from the swimming pool and he was taken to nearby Lake Side Hospital. That being the factual position, the petitioners who are the parents of the deceased have made false averments in the writ petition, as if they were present at the spot at the time of the incident. That being the factual position, the petitioners who are the parents of the deceased have made false averments in the writ petition, as if they were present at the spot at the time of the incident. In fact, at the time of the incident, a regular swimmer who is a noted Doctor was also present and under his guidance, Life Guard had done Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) to push out water from the stomach of Narendra Kumar before he was taken to the Hospital. The allegation that negligence on the part of the respondent is the main cause for the death of Narendra Kumar is totally false and baseless. The death of Narendra Kumar was the result of sheer negligence on his part and this respondent is not responsible. As such, the claim for compensation is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. Further allegation made in the writ petition that the respondents have not provided necessary basic first-aid kit at the swimming pool is false. First-aid kit is very much available at the swimming pool. The petitioners have made baseless allegations only to suit their purpose. 6. A reading of the above would show that the case of the petitioners is denied by Respondent No.2. 7. The determination of the issue as to whether the deceased had died due to the negligence of the instructors at the swimming pool involves disputed questions of facts which cannot be gone into in a writ proceeding under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court for necessary reliefs in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. 9. Petition dismissed.