Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 19 (ORI)

Mami Padhi v. State of Orissa

2016-01-08

S.N.PRASAD

body2016
JUDGMENT : S.N. PRASAD, J. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the opposite parties to compensate the petitioners on the ground of death of one Siba Shankar Padhi who succumbed to the injury on account of sudden attack by a street bull. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that while returning near Gayatri Restaurant on the road a street bull all of a sudden hit the deceased and ultimately the deceased died. After death F.I.R. was instituted and the death has been admitted. It is the further case of the petitioner that since due to negligence on the part of the Puri Municipality death has been caused and as such petitioner is entitled to be compensated by the Puri Municipality because of the reason that it is the duty of the Puri Municipality to safeguard life of the people of the locality in which Municipality has failed in discharging duty. After being noticed Puri Municipality has appe.ared and filed counter affidavit and disputed the claim of the petitioners by stating therein that there is no negligence on the part of the Puri Municipality. It has been stated by the opposite parties that this is disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Court because the whole case of the petitioner is that there is negligence on the part of the opposite parties hence petitioners are entitled for the compensation while on the other hand the opposite parties is submitting that the occurrence has not occurred due to negligence. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. There is no dispute that Siba Sankar Padhi has died due to the injuries having been caused by street bull. Prayer which has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding compensation claimed by family of the deceased from the Puri Municipality but the Puri Municipality has objected that there is no negligence on the part of the Puri Municipality and the very ground for compensation on the ground of death is being disputed. In order to prove negligence which requires to lead evidence which cannot be done in a proceeding like Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In order to prove negligence which requires to lead evidence which cannot be done in a proceeding like Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is the settled legal position where disputed question of fact is involved the relief sought for by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a proper remedy. High Court has got no power to adjudicate the dispute in such type of cases. In this respect the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and Others vs. Smt. Sukamani Das and Another reported in 1999 Supl. 2 SCR 458 worth to be seen wherein in the similar circumstances the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that such type of disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of India. Applying the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court with the present case, I find that no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.