M.M. Kumar, C.J.;— 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.07.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge, allowing O WP no. 04/2006. The learned Single Judge has found that Kuldeep Singh employed as Cleaner with a Truck was placing rope on the Truck on 26.04.2000. Kuldeep Singh, came in contact with High Tension Aerial 11 KV Line which was suspended at lower level on the road at Tariokpur-Gole Gujral, Jammu which resulted in severe burn injuries to him and later on he succumbed to his injuries at Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu on 27.04.2000. His father, brother and sister filed writ petition bearing No. 04/2006, relatable to the instant appeal, claiming Ks. 4.00 lac along with interest as compensation for the death of Kuldeep Singh on account of the negligence of the appellant-State in suspending the High Tension 11KV Aerial Line plow the prescribed height/level from the road. The learned Single Judge deferred the consideration of the writ petition to await the finding from the Sub Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Jammu on the question as to whether the death of Kuldeep Singh had resulted on account of the negligence of the appellant-State in not maintaining the requisite height of the High Tension Aerial Lines or for his own fault. Parties were directed to appear before the Learned Sub Judge on 01.11.2008. The learned Sub Judge recorded categorical finding that the height of 11 KV Aerial Line on the road leading to Gole Gujral was 14 feet from the ground level and that the appellant-State was negligent in not maintaining the requisite height of the High Tension Aerial Line alongside the road. The findings have been found based on the evidence. It was also found that the Transmission Line was laid about 30 years ago and the height of the 11 KV Transmission Line had reduced because of the widening of the road and its macadamisation from time to time. Accordingly, learned Single Judge assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. The findings have been found based on the evidence. It was also found that the Transmission Line was laid about 30 years ago and the height of the 11 KV Transmission Line had reduced because of the widening of the road and its macadamisation from time to time. Accordingly, learned Single Judge assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 3.40 lac and proceeded to observe as under:- "In the circumstances and keeping I view the fact that petitioner No. 1 has been deprived of the company and earnings of his young son at his old age, and that he would have to lead rest of his life with the wounded feelings of deprivation of the company, love and affection of his son, an amount of Rs. Three lac would be appropriate compensation to petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 15,000/-for the death of Kuldeep Singh and Petitioner No. 3 to Rs. 25,000/-, keeping in view her dependency on the earning of the deceased as projected in the Writ Petition. The respondents are, accordingly, held liable to pay Rs. 3.40 lac to the petitioners as compensation, which they would share as follows:- 1) S. Prem Sing Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rs Three lac) 2) Shamsher Singh Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) 3) Miss Jagir Kour Rs. 25,000/- (Rs Twenty five thousand) This petition, therefore, succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. A direction shall issue to the respondents to pay Rs. 3.40 lac to the petitioners, as indicated above, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till its realization, within a period of three months." 2, We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-State at a considerable length and are of the view that the law on the issue of awarding compensation on account of negligence on the part of the State or its officers leading to the death of a citizen is well settled. In the present case there is no dispute on facts. The Courts have been granting suitable compensation. In the present case there is no dispute on facts. The Courts have been granting suitable compensation. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in cases of Parvati Devi and ors v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and ors, (2000) 3 SCC 754 , Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Sumathi and Ors, (2000) 4 SCC 543 and M. P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari and ors, (2002) 2 SCC 162 . It is true that in the case of Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) and ors v. Smt. Sukamani Das and another, (1999) 7 SCC 298 , their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that where disputed question of fact is involved the Courts should not entertain writ petition undei Article 226. However, in the present case such a possibility has been abviated, because the learned Single Judge has sought findings from the learned Sub Judge who offered opportunity to both the parties. Once the amount of compensation awarded is based on the findings recorded by the learned Sub Judge, then no doubt is left that the principles laid down in case of Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (supra) would not apply. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge deserves to be upheld. The appeal does not merit admission and as such it is liable to be dismissed. 3. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.