JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) - The petitioner, who is an agriculturist has approached this court by way of instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking therein direction to the respondent Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board to pay him compensation on account of electrocution rendering him 55% permanently disabled. 2. For having a birds eye view, certain undisputed facts as emerge from the record are that the petitioner, while grazing cattle, came in contact with loose and unattended live H.T. wire touching the earth in the forest namely Chakhra (Junga), as a consequence of which, he suffered multiple burn injuries. Immediately after alleged incident, petitioner was taken to Civil Hospital, Junga, wherefrom he was referred to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, where he remained hospitalized as an indoor patient with effect from 4.7.2017 to 13.7.2017. Pleadings as well as documents placed therewith further reveal that consequent to aforesaid electrocution, a case under Sections 336 and 337 IPC came to be registered against the delinquent and negligent officials of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, bearing FIR No. 93/17, dated 1.7.2017, at Police Station Junga. Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Junga issued medico legal certificate (MLC) detailing therein injuries sustained by the petitioner on account of electrocution (Annexure P-1). Allegedly, on account of electrocution, left hand of the petitioner has become completely dysfunctional and he also sustained injuries on head, skull, back and other parts of body. 3. On 6.7.2018, petitioner came to be examined by a duly constituted Board at DDU Hospital Shimla, who, after having medically examined the petitioner, termed disability suffered by the petitioner to be permanent to the extent of 55%. While rendering aforesaid opinion, the Medical Board, as referred to above, observed as follows: "Electric Burn (L) hand C post burn cunfractur and deformed thumb and fingers with joint stiffness". 4. In the petition at hand, petitioner has claimed that though he is an agriculturist/horticulturist by profession, but besides that he had been also rendering his services as a Carpenter, as such, his monthly income prior to alleged incident was approximately Rs. 30,000/- per month. On account of disability suffered by the petitioner in the alleged incident, his income has siphoned to zero and as such, he deserves to be compensated adequately by the respondent Board. Petitioner has also claimed that he has already spent approximately Rs. 30,000/- per month. On account of disability suffered by the petitioner in the alleged incident, his income has siphoned to zero and as such, he deserves to be compensated adequately by the respondent Board. Petitioner has also claimed that he has already spent approximately Rs. 3.00 Lakh on his treatment including medicines and nutritious diet, as such, he is left with no means to take care of himself. Petitioner has claimed that since the respondents intentionally and deliberately failed to take due care, precaution and safety measures with regard to maintenance and transmission of electricity, he sustained serious injuries, rendering him 55% permanently disabled and, as such, respondents may be directed to award compensation to the tune of Rs. 50.00 Lakh in his favour. 5. Respondents in their reply to the petition though have admitted the factum with regard to petitioners having suffered burns on account of electrocution by an 11 KV high tension line near Ashwani Khadd, but have claimed that the inquiry committee constituted after aforesaid alleged incident has submitted its inquiry report on 2.11.2017, stating therein that the accident happened due to terrain /dangerous location/hill and not due to any negligence of the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited or other Department. In nutshell case of the respondents as projected in their reply is that there is no fault on the part of respondents, as such, they can not be held liable to pay damages/compensation, if any, to the petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, we find that there is no dispute with regard to multiple injuries having been suffered by the petitioner on account of electrocution, rather, respondents in their reply have admitted the factum with regard to the incident though have suggested that the petitioner met with non-fatal accident due to terrain and dangerous location and there is no fault, if any, of the officials of respondent Board. However, the fact remains that the respondents deliberately failed to take due care and precaution and safety measures with regard to maintenance of transmission line. 7. At this stage, the question which needs to be determined/examined is whether this court, while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can proceed to award compensation on account of burn injuries by way of electrocution. 7. At this stage, the question which needs to be determined/examined is whether this court, while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can proceed to award compensation on account of burn injuries by way of electrocution. Hon''ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases has ruled that in case it is established on record that the accident occurred due to negligence of the respondent/authority concerned, writ court can proceed to award compensation while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (See D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416 , Rudal Shah.v. State of Bihar, (1983) 2 SCC 746 and MCD v. Subhagawanti & Ors. AIR 1966 SC 1750 .) However, the Apex Court, in case Chairman Grid Corpn. V. Sukamani Dass, (1999) 7 SCC 298 , has held that if disputed questions of facts come on record, the same cannot be adjudicated by a writ court. 8. At this stage, it would be profitable to take note of the following paras of Chairman Grid Corpn. V. Sukamani Dass (supra): "6. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petitions even though they were not fit cases for exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court went wrong in proceeding on the basis that as the deaths had taken place because of electrocution as a result of the deceased coming into contact with snapped live wires of the electric transmission lines of the appellants, that "admittedly prima facie amounted to negligence on the part of the appellants". The High Court failed to appreciate that all these cases were actions in tort and negligence was required to be established firstly by the claimants. Mere fact that the wire of the electric transmission line belonging to the appellant No. 1 had snapped and the deceased had come into contact with it and had died was not by itself sufficient for awarding compensation. It also required to be examined whether the wire had snapped as a result of any negligence of the appellants and under which circumstances the deceased had come into contact with the wire. It also required to be examined whether the wire had snapped as a result of any negligence of the appellants and under which circumstances the deceased had come into contact with the wire. In view of the specific defences raised by the appellants in each of these cases they deserved an opportunity to prove that proper care and precautions were taken in maintaining the transmission lines and yet the wires had snapped because of circumstances beyond their control or unauthorised intervention of third parties or that the deceased had not died in the manner stated by the petitioner. These questions could not have been decided properly on the basis of affidavits only. It is the settled legal position that where disputed questions of facts are involved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy. The High Court has not and could not have held that the disputes in these cases were raised for the sake of raising them and that there was no substance therein. The High Court should have directed the writ petitioners to approach the Civil Court as it was done in OJC No. 5229 of 1995. 7. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the decision of this Court in Shakuntala Devi v. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, [1995] 2 SCC 369 is really of no avail to the respondents. Even while entertaining a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, in view of the peculiar facts of that case, this Court observed in clear terms that "the question of negligence of officials of Respondent 1 can be properly examined in a suit where correct facts can be established." In that case, respondent No. 1 was directed to make payment of reasonable amount ex - gratia in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution and that too becasuse respondent No. 1 had agreed to that course being adopted. The power which is available to this Court under Article 142 is not available to the High Courts, as observed by this Court in Sanchalakshri & Anr. v. Vijayakumar Raghuvirprasad Mehta & Anr. JT (1998) 8 SC 55. " 9. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law that where disputed questions of facts are involved, petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a proper remedy. v. Vijayakumar Raghuvirprasad Mehta & Anr. JT (1998) 8 SC 55. " 9. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law that where disputed questions of facts are involved, petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a proper remedy. The question re: extent of negligence of the officials of the respondent/authority concerned thus can be properly examined in a suit, where correct facts can be established. 10. Though, in the case at hand, factum with regard to petitioners having suffered multiple burn injuries on account of electrocution has not been denied but the respondent Electricity Board while referring to some enquiry report submitted by an Enquiry Committee set up after the alleged incident, has taken a stand that the accident did not occur on account of negligence of its officials, rather same happened due to terrain/dangerous location/hill. Hence, we are of the considered view that the degree and extent of negligence on the part of officials of respondent Board is required to be proved in accordance with law, by the petitioner by leading cogent and convincing evidence in civil proceedings, if any, filed by him. 11. Though, we are fully alive and conscious of the fact that the damages/compensation as claimed in the present petition can not be determined/quantified in the instant proceedings, because question with regard to negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of employees of the respondent Board is required to be proved in accordance with law by the petitioner in the appropriate proceedings of law, but, having taken note of the fact that there is no dispute that the petitioner has suffered multiple injuries on account of electrocution, we deem it fit to award some compensation as an interim measure enabling him to meet his day-to-day expenses as well as legal expenses which he may incur on account of proceedings, if any, filed on his behalf for damages/compensation in the appropriate court of law. 12. Consequently, in view of discussion made herein above, present petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 5.00 Lakh as an interim compensation to the petitioner within a period of four weeks. 12. Consequently, in view of discussion made herein above, present petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 5.00 Lakh as an interim compensation to the petitioner within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, aforesaid amount awarded to the petitioner as an interim measure would be adjusted /counted towards the compensation, if any, granted in favour of the petitioner, in appropriate proceedings, which may be initiated by him. 13. Before parting with the judgment, we may note that the observations made herein above, shall have no bearing on the decision of the proceedings, which may be filed on behalf of the petitioner before an appropriate forum, which shall be decided on in its own merits. 14. With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition is disposed of alongwith all pending miscellaneous applications.