R.S.Garg, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The facts leading to this writ application and as alleged by the petitioner are that on 23.4.1998 a live electrical wire snapped from the pole and fell on the husband of the petitioner as a result of which he died on the spot. The first information report was lodged which was registered as Sasaram PS case No. 352/98. The petitioner thereafter made an application to the respondents for compensation but as the respondents did not do anything in the matter the petitioner has now come to this Court submitting inter alia that a sum of Rs. ten lacs be awarded to the petitioner as compensation.

3. The first information report is Annexure-1, it reads that at about 4.30 am Shri Ram Awadh Singh, Advocate was going to Kali Mandir to offer his Puja, the wire snapped, fell on his body as a result of which he died on the spot. The respondents in their counter have not denied the two facts that the wire snapped and the deceased died as a result of electrocution. They have simply submitted that in accordance with sec. 33 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 the accident has not been reported therefore, this Court should not interfere in the matter. They have also submitted that the Assistant Engineer submitted his report on 17.11.1998 wherein he has said that Shri Ram Awadh Singh died of electrocution but the other facts asserted by the claimants that the wire was loose, it was making sparks and such facts were reported to the Electricity Board were concocted. In his report Annexure-A the said Engineer has said that no consumer had ever made any report about the wire being loose or hanging.

4. The respondents have also said that after receiving the information about the death and snapping of the wire, the supply was immediately cut and preventive measures were taken.

5. During course of the arguments it was submitted that as the matter relates to the disputed questions of facts this Court should not interfere under Article 220 of the Constitution of India. Taking an exception to the argument placing reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the matter of Ram Swaroop Yadav V/s. The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors., 2004 (2) BLJR 959, it is submitted that the common rule is that the High Court ordinarily would not interfere in a matter where facts are disputed but that rules are not of universal application and are self imposed restrictions. It is submitted that in the said matter in identical situation where the facts were proved that the person died of electrocution, the accident was not denied, the Court held that the High Court would be competent to award compensation under Art. 226.

6. The Supreme Court in the matter of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board V/s. Sumathi and Ors., (2000) 4 SCC 543, has observed that when a disputed question of fact arises and there is clear denial of any tortious liability, remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be proper, but it can not be understood as laying a law that in every case of tortious liability recourse must be had to a suit. When there is negligence on the face of it and infringement of Article 21 is there it can not be said that there will be any Bar to proceed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The observations made by the Supreme Court in the matter of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board V/s. Sumathi and Ors., (supra) would be relevant.

7. The first question to be considered in this matter would be whether any question of fact has been disputed or not. Whether any fact has been controverted or not, whether the respondents are saying that the facts projected by the petitioner are false, concocted or manufactured only for the purposes of the writ application.

8. To raise a dispute of fact, the respondents have not denied snapping of the wire and the death of Shri Ram Awadh Singh. From Annexure-A, it would clearly appear that the man died on 23.7.1998 because of fall of snapped live wire, their defence only is th