JUDGMENT S.K. Mishra, J.-- The petitioner in this case prays for issue of writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-(Rupees eleven lakhs) for the death of her son due to electrocution. 2. The petitioner’s son was working as a daily wage earner under the contractors of the Cuttack Municipal Corporation and on 15.09.2009 on the instruction of the Junior Engineer, the deceased T.Kailash Rao was cleaning the drainage near Sunshine Field, Cuttack. During such cleaning, he suddenly came in contact with the live electric wire and because of the shock, he died at the spot. Another labourer was also injured in that accident. 3. Soon after the accidental death, Mayor of the Municipal Corporation came to the spot and paid an ex gratia of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) and assured for further and proper compensation. Thereafter, the Municipal Authorities as well as the electricity authorities shifted responsibility on each other and did not pay any compensation to the petitioner. An F.I.R. was lodged by the Sub-Divisional Officer, which indicated that one Babuli Sahu committed the theft of energy and availed power supply unauthorizedly from the pole by hooking. It was also mentioned in the F.I.R. that one of the labourers came in contact with live electric wire thus drawn by the said Babuli Sahu and died. On such F.I.R. the police registered a case bearing P.S. Case No.49 (5) of 2009 for the offences under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act and Sections 338, 379 and 304 A of the I.P.C. The petitioner approached the Municipal Authorities several times for compensation, but there was no response. Then she approached electricity authorities but it was of no use. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a Pleader’s notice to the Municipal Corporation as well as the Electricity department and since the same did not bear any fruit, she filed this writ application claiming compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-(Rupees eleven lakhs). 4. The opposite party no.1-Municipal Corporation has filed a counter affidavit, wherein though the accident was admitted, the Commissioner claimed that the Municipal Corporation has no role to play. Hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation. 5. 4. The opposite party no.1-Municipal Corporation has filed a counter affidavit, wherein though the accident was admitted, the Commissioner claimed that the Municipal Corporation has no role to play. Hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation. 5. Opposite parties 2 and 3 i.e. Assistant General Manager and Executive Engineer, CESU have filed a counter affidavit, wherein they plead that the opposite parties have taken all sorts of precaution to avoid theft of electricity and to avoid any wrong to any person or animal. The opposite parties further averred that the electricity has been supplied to the consumers of that area through insulated cable not only to avoid theft but also to avoid accident, but in spite of that one Sudhakar Sahoo of Upper Telenga Bazar without any knowledge of the opposite parties committed theft by hooking and by concealing the hooking wires through that drain. The CESU Authorities have time and again issued public notices to award monetary incentive if any person will intimate the CESU authorities regarding theft of electricity but neither any person of that locality or anybody informed these authorities regarding theft of electricity. It was, therefore, pleaded that the theft was not within the knowledge of the opposite parties. The Electricity authorities, therefore, plead that they are not negligent in any manner and that the deceased himself was guilty of contributory negligence as he has not taken proper care before cleaning the drain. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the ratio decided in Khetramani Jena and others v. State of Orissa and others, 109 (2010) CLT 499, for the death due to electrocution, the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation from the opposite parties. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, submitted that as there are disputed questions involved in this case, the writ application is not maintainable. In Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and others v. Smt. Sukamani Das and another, (1999) 7 SCC 298 , the Supreme Court held that where disputed questions regarding negligence, contributory negligence etc. are involved, a writ application is not the proper remedy. The aggrieved party should approach the Civil Court for redressal. In Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and others v. Smt. Sukamani Das and another, (1999) 7 SCC 298 , the Supreme Court held that where disputed questions regarding negligence, contributory negligence etc. are involved, a writ application is not the proper remedy. The aggrieved party should approach the Civil Court for redressal. Similarly in S.D.O. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and others v. Timudu Oram, AIR 2005 SC 3971 , the Supreme Court while deciding a batch of appeals considered the question as to whether, the High Court was justified in exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and awarding compensation to the respondents/writ petitioners, even though the appellants, who were the opposite parties in the writ petition, had denied the liability on the ground that the death has not occurred as a result of their negligence but because of the negligence of the writ petitioners themselves or of an act of God or because of an act of some other persons. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner cannot be held of negligence for electrocution because of illegal hooking for the purpose of theft of electricity. The aforesaid decision is clearly applicable to this case. 7. It is pertinent to note that the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the Assistant Electrical Inspector, Cuttack, wherein he has come to the following conclusion : “On dated 15.05.2009 a group of people (4 or 5 persons) were engaged by CMC for cleaning of NALA running adjacent to the said pole. While cleaning, Sri T.Kailash was electrocuted by coming contact with damaged hooking service wire which was taken from the pole No.GG8A/5C and Sri T.Sadhu, Male 40 years was injured. That service wire was taken by Sri Sudhakar Sahu who is a non-consumer of CESU. Service wire and the electrical appliances used by Sri Sudhakar Sahu were seized by local police and Sri Sudhakar Sahu was arrested. Investigation is under progress by local police.” The aforesaid finding, which is not disputed by any of the parties, reveals that the deceased died as a result of act of a third party i.e. Sudhakar Sahoo, who had taken illegal connection of the electricity without the knowledge of the Electricity authorities and in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the officer of SESU were in any manner negligent. Furthermore, this is a case where there are disputed questions of fact, in the sense that denial by the opposite party about absence of negligence on their part is not merely for the sake of it. They have specifically pleaded and shown, prima facie, that the electrocution was due to act of a third party. Hence, the writ court is not the proper forum to decide the same. In above view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.