Award passed cannot be set aside.

A. R. LAKSHMANAN, J.

The Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 7-7-1994 passed by A. Abdul Hadi, J., in W.P. No. 11576 of 1994 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants for a mandamus directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs by way of compensation for the death of one T. Suryaprakash, who is the son of the appellants and who lost his life due to electrocution

2. The order of the learned Judge reads thus:

"The petitioners are claiming a compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs from the respondents. That is the mandamus sought for in this writ petition. The said relief is prayed for on the ground that on 15-11-1993, the petitioners' son died due to electrocution and hence, on the ground of negligence on the part of the respondents, the abovesaid claim is made

The appropriate remedy in such cases is only a regular suit. The writ jurisdiction is only for the enforcement of a right and not for establishment of right. The writ petitioners have to prove negligence on the part of the respondents and also to prove the quautum of damages. The occurrence, even according to the petitioners, had taken place several months ago. Even earlier, they could have filed a suit. It is clear from the averments to the supporting affidavit that the claim requires investigation of several facts and suit is the most appropriate remedy in such cases. Such claims cannot be decided properly, in a summary proceeding like the one under Article 24 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to rely on the decision in Kumari v. State of Tamil Nadu 1992 (2) SCC 233), But I have already held in my order in W.P. No. 11029 of 1994 which also sought for a similar mandamus claiming a compensation Rs. 5 lakhs for electrocution death, that only a suit would lie and the abovesaid decision of the Supreme Court as well as another decision reported in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India 1987 (1) ACC 157, 1987 AIR(SC) 1086, 1987 (3) CompLJ 99, 1987 (1) JT 1, 1986 (2) Scale 1188, 1987 (1) SCC 395, 1987 (1) SCR 819, 1987 SCC(L&S) 37, 1987 SCC(L&S) 37, 1987 SCC(L&S) 37, 1987 AIR(SCL) 086, 1987 SCC(L&S) 37, 1987 SCC(L&S) 37, 1987 SCC(L&S) 37, 1987 SCC(L&S) 37), are distinguishable. Further in Sohan Lal v. Union of India 1957 AIR(SC) 529, 1957 SCJ 489, 1957 (1) SCR 738), also it has been held that writ jurisdiction is not for the establishment of right but for enforcement of right and a writ petition cannot be converted into a suit. Accordingly, this writ petition is not admitted and it is dismissed."

The correctness of the order of the learned single Judge is challenged in this Writ Appeal by the parents of deceased T. Suryaprakash

3. In the Writ Appeal, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, that the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned single Judge is wrong, in that, the appellants sought to establish a right when the writ petition was filed only for the enforcement of a right which already existed, i.e., the right to ensure that proper safeguards being provided to the public from the overhead wires carrying heavy loads of electricity. This right having been established sufficiently, the appellants are entitled to their right to claim compensation for the subsequent right accrued. It is further contended that the learned Judge has erred in holding that the quantum of damages had to be gone into only by a Civil Court while deciding a suit when it is very much within the powers and jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution to decide the quantum of damages. It is then urged that the documents filed viz., postmortem certificate, etc., clearly establish that the death of the appellants' son was only due to electrocution and the fact the electrocution had occurred as the respondents had failed to provide cradles to the overhead lines and poles. The learned Judge has failed to look into these aspects of the matter

4. During the pendency of the Writ Appeal, on 19-6-1996, we passed