Public authorities have a duty to maintain public property in a safe condition, and are liable for injuries caused by their negligence in doing so.

PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) A wall encompassing the General Post Office, Cuttack collapsed on 29-8-1991. According to the petitioner, he was passing by the side of the wall, a portion of the wall fell on him, and he sustained injuries. He makes a claim of Rs. I lakh as damage from the Union of India, the Chief Post Master General of the State, the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices and the Post Master of the concerned post office on the ground that due and proper care was not taken as regards maintenance of the wall, and on account of such negligence, he sustained serious injuries, was hospitalised for a pretty long time, his left leg was severely fractured and his right leg was also injured. Though the residents of nearby Bepari Sahi had many times requested the authorities for effecting repairs to the wall which was in a precarious stage and was on the verge of collapse, with apprehension of damage to life and property, the authorities turned a deaf ear to the same. The apprehension came to be true when on 29-8-1991 the wall collapsed.

( 2 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties wherein it is accepted that the wall collapsed but the same is attributed to natural calamity. A plea has been taken that there is no material to show that the petitioner is the person who sustained injuries. It is stated that there was torrential rain on 29-8-1991, and due to such rain it was not possible to come out. Some persons belonging to the nearby locality came to the Post Master, General Post Office, Buxi Bazar (opp. party No. 4) and demanded money for treatment of a person who was injured due to collapse of the wall. Since the mood of the persons who had come for financial assistance was not very congenial, opposite party No. 4 and other members of the staff of the Post Office collected Rs. 500/- and gave it for treatment of the alleged injured, though there is no statutory prescription for making such payment. It is stated that whether any injury was caused or not was also doubtful, as no injured person was produced before the officials of the SPO. It is asserted that for a pretty long time prior to date of occurrence there was heavy and continuous rain, and there was no negligence on the part of the authorities in maintaining the wall. It is asserted that the boundary wall was in good condition, and is at a distance from the public road. The assertion of the petitioner that the local people had requested the authorities for repair of the compound wall is not correct, and as the wall was in good condition and there was no grievance by anybody, the question of any negligence does not arise.

( 3 ) THERE is no dispute and practically there is acceptance that the wall had collapsed. From the station diary entry made by the A. S. I. of Kangalabag Police Station it appears that the length of the wall which broke down is about 30 feet. From the various document filed like the Out Door Patient ticket, the station diary entry and the first information report lodged with the Police it is clear that one Ramesh Kumar Nayak sustained injuries on account of collapse of the wall. We find no material to discard the plea of the petitioner that he is the person who sustained injuries due to collapse of the wall.

( 4 ) THE crucial questions are whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation; whether there was any negligence on the part of the opposite parties; whether the collapse can be said to be resultant of natural calamity, and if there was negligence whether the opposite parties are liable to compensate the petitioner. A preliminary objection is raised by Shri U. C. Panda, learned Counsel for the opposite parties that in a case of this nature, a writ application is not the proper remedy. There can be no doubt that where disputed questions of fact are involved, the writ Court would be slow to entertain an application and permit the affected party to seek redress in a proper Civil Court. But in view of almost accepted position r