Award ratified as there being no error on the face of the record.

A. R. LAKSHMANAN, J.

This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of Abdul Hadi, J., dated 29-6-1994 made in W.P. No. 11029 of 1994 dismissing the writ petition for mandamus directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation to the appellants (writ petitioners) for the death of one G. Subramani

2. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing thus

"(1) The fact that the occurrence took place long back, three years ago and 2, that the fact that the 1st written complaint was made to the 3rd respondent only on 15-10-1992 and 3, that the fact that the second written complaint was made to the 2nd respondent only on 7-4-1994, I see no reason to exercise the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner could have very well moved the Civil Court long back and claimed compensation. The petitioners, having not done so, after such a long time, cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the ground of laches also the writ petition has to be dismissed. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed." *

3. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the court can under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, grant the award of compensation as a remedial relief, in writ proceedings and that the dismissal of the writ petition without even issuing notice to the respondents to find their stand is incorrect. It is also contended that the learned single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition on the grounds of laches, and applying the ratio of the Supreme Court decision, the learned Judge should have held that the writ petition is maintainable. Alongwith the appeal, a petition in C.M.P. No. 11915 of 1997 was filed to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 1, 50, 000/- pending disposal of the appeal. On 19-6-1996, after hearing both sides, we passed the following order:

"(3) In support of the claim in the writ petition several documents are produced to show that on 30-6-1991 the said G. Subramani died due to electrocution. We do not consider it necessary to go into all those documents, as this is a matter which has to be decided on the basis of pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by them. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that as considerable time has lapsed and as the writ petition is filed in this court in 1994, instead of driving the petitioners to Civil Court for claiming damages, it would be in the interests of justice to appoint an arbitrator to determine the compensation payable. Both sides have also agree that a retired District Judge may be appointed as arbitrator to determine the compensations, pass appropriate award and submit the same to this court, on ascertaining from the retired District Judges, it is found that Shri K. R. Gururajan, retired District Judge, is willing to function as arbitrator

(4) We accordingly, appoint Shri K. R. Gururajan, retired District Judge, as arbitrator as agreed to by both sides, to decide the claim for compensation made by the petitioner in the writ petition who are appellants in this appeal. The order appointing Shri K. R. Gururajan as arbitrator in this matter shall be issued by the Registry within a week. The arbitrator shall submit his award to this Court within four (4) months. The remuneration of the arbitrator is left open to be determined on the submission of the award. But initially he would require money for meeting the incidental expenses. Therefore, we direct the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, to deposit a sum of Rs. 5, 000 (Rupees Five Thousand) in this court within two (2) weeks from today. From that amount, the Registrar shall disburse the amount to the arbitrator as and when he requires for incidental expenses. It is open to the arbitrator to seek such directions as may be necessary from this court from time to time. The place of the proceedings will have to be decided by the arbitrator