JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. - Heard Mr. U.C. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 and Mr. D.K. Pani, learned Addl. Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner has filed this application claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- due to death of his son on electrocution. 3. Mr. U.C. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the son of the petitioner, who was standing bare footed on wet sand cum concrete surface four to five feet away from the electric pole, the ceramic insulator attached to pole suddenly brushed and fell down on the ground with a loud sound, as result of which, the pole stay and surrounding areas on which the pole stands becomes electrically charged leading to premature death of his son. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the inquest report, as well as the post mortem report in Annexures-1 and 3 respectively. In the post mortem report, the cause of death has been indicated as due to electrocution. Therefore, the petitioner claims for Rs. 3,00,000/- for premature death of his son. 4. Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 states that since there is disputed questions of fact are involved in this case, the writ petition is not maintainable. In addition to that, it is contended that the death having been occurred in the year 1999 and after expiry of three years of period, i.e., in year 2002, the petitioner could not have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition and, as such, unless the petitioner is able to satisfy the Court that there is negligence on the part of the electricity authority, no compensation can be paid to him. So far as factual matrix is concerned, the allegation of the petitioner is not correct in view of the fact that if the ceramic insulator in respect of a 11 KV line bursts with a fraction of 0.05 second the supply will be tripped/isolated from the respective 33/11 KV Grid automatically. Apart from that the current will never pass through the so called HT stay to the earth as alleged by the petitioner because one insulator is also provided to the said HT stay in between the earth and the pole. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner for compensation at this stage, does not arise. 5. Apart from that the current will never pass through the so called HT stay to the earth as alleged by the petitioner because one insulator is also provided to the said HT stay in between the earth and the pole. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner for compensation at this stage, does not arise. 5. Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, the factum of death of the son of the petitioner due to electrocution cannot be disputed, rather the only dispute to be considered that whether the said death is caused due to negligence on the part of the electricity authority. More so, no materials have been produced before this Court to come to a conclusion that there is negligence on the part of the authority concerned, so as to entitled the petitioner to get compensation. Apart from the same, negligence of the part of the authority has to be adjudicated by the competent forum not in the present writ petition. 6. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain this application. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a properly constituted application before the appropriate forum, particularly, before the learned Civil court, for just and proper adjudication of the matter so as to satisfy the court that there is negligence on the part of the authority concerned for entitlement of compensation. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Final Result : Disposed Of