60$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5149/2011
ANAND PRAKASH & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Adv.
Versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Himanshu Bajaj, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 22.07.2011
1. The two petitioners seek mandamus directing the respondent Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Union of India, Delhi Police and one Sh. Pravesh Kumar Chawla to jointly/severally pay compensation of `15,00,000/- to each of the petitioners. It is inter alia the case of the petitioners that the respondent No.4 Sh. Pravesh Kumar Chawla Proprietor of Garment Export Factory has been carrying on unauthorized activity without permission from the respondents No.1 to 3, in a premises in the vicinity of the residences of the petitioners and has been storing highly inflammable material without maintaining safety hazards. It is further the case of the petitioners that on 1 st April, 2010 the workers of the respondent No.4 were getting the clothes washed with a large quantity of Thinner on the road and threw a match stick on the Thinner which caught fire and engulfed the petitioners and in which incident, the petitioners have sustained burn injuries. Averring that the injuries were caused owing to the negligence of the respondents No.1 to 4 i.e. of the respondents No.1 to 3 not taking any action and the respondent No.4 carrying on an illegal activity, damages are claimed from all four.
2. The petitioners along with the petition have filed only a copy of the FIR of the incident and their photographs to show the burn injuries sustained by them.
3. Since the claim for compensation is jointly against the respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4 and since the writ remedy would not lie against the respondent No.4, it is deemed expedient that the petitioners pursue their remedies by way of a suit rather than by way of this writ petition. Even otherwise, the adjudication as per the averments would entail disputed questions of fact which cannot be appropriately dealt with in writ jurisdiction.
4. The petition is therefore dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the petitioners to take other appropriate remedies for the same cause of action.
No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J JULY 22, 2011 'gsr'..