Pushpa Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 50 ALL

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 50 ALL
Judgement Date : 4 January, 2021

Allahabad High Court

Pushpa Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 4 January, 2021

Bench: Pankaj Naqvi, Gautam Chowdhary




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17010 of 2020
 

 
Petitioner :- Pushpa Tiwari
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahboob Ahmad,Narendra Kumar Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari for respondent nos. 4 & 5 and the learned standing counsel.

This writ petition has been filed, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents concerned to enhance the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.75 lakhs.

The husband of the petitioner died on account of electrocution, allegedly attributable to negligence of respondent nos. 4 & 5.

The petitioner earlier preferred Writ-C No. 9952/2009 for claim of compensation which came to be disposed of on 29.3.2019 with the direction to the Executive Engineer concerned to decide the claim within a specified period. Admittedly petitioner has been granted compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. Petitioner aggrieved on account of inadequate compensation, on the strength of the Judgement/Order in Writ-C No.16877/2009, has now filed the present writ petition for enhanced compensation.

Sri Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 & 5 raised a preliminary objection that the claim would involve investigation of disputed question of of facts which cannot be examined in this jurisdiction as it is always open for the petitioner to ventilate his grievance in an appropriate suit before the competent court.

We are in full agreement with the submission of Sri Tiwari and in so far the effect of the judgement in Writ - C No.16877/2009 is concerned, we have perused the same and do not find any discussion in the said judgment that this Court under Article 226 can enter into disputed question of facts. The said judgement is confined to its own facts.

The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 4.1.2021

Chandra