Disputed questions of fact and the assessment of compensation require leading of evidence by the parties, which is not permissible in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Rajeev Gupta, J.

Mr. H.C. Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Lalit Sharma, Brief Holder for respondent No.1.

Mr.B.D. Upadhyaya, Advocate for respondents Nos. 2 & 3.

They are heard.

2. Petitioner Nandan Singh Rathor has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: "A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 19-01-2007 (Annexure No.7) passed by the respondent No.2 so far it relates to rejection of the employment of petitioner.

B. Issue a writ order or direction in the name of mandamus directing the respondents to pay adequate compensation to the petitioner and also specifically disclose the amount of compensation to be paid to the petitioner.

C. Issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

D. Award cost of writ petition to the petitioner."

3. The learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 & 3, placing reliance on the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of SDO, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and others Vs. Timudu Oram reported in (2005) 6 SCC 156, has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the writ petition involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be resolved in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The Apex Court, in the case of SDO, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and others Vs. Timudu Oram (supra), while considering the question of maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matters relating to compensation, observed in para 6 :

"6. In Chairman, Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) with which case these appeals were listed for hearing but could not be heard for want of service, this Court took the view that the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and were not fit cases for exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was held that actions in tort and negligence were required to be established initially by the claimants. The mere fact that the wire of electric transmission line belonging to the appellants had snapped and the deceased had come into contact with it and died by itself was not sufficient for awarding compensation. The Court was required to examine as to whether the wire had snapped as a result of any negligence on the part of the appellants, as a result of which the deceased had come in contact with the wire. In view of the defence raised and the denial by the appellants in each of the cases, the appellants deserved an opportunity to prove that proper care and precautions were taken in maintaining the transmission line and yet the wires had snapped because of the circumstances beyond their control or unauthorised intervention of third parties. Such disputed questions of fact could not be decided in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. That the High Court could not come to the conclusion that the defence raised by the appellants had been raised only for the sake of it and there was no substance in it. In para 6 it was observed thus: (SCC pp. 301-02)

"6. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petitions even though they were not fit cases for exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court went wrong in proceeding on the basis that as the deaths had taken place because of electrocution as a result of the deceased coming into contact with snapped live wires of the electric transmission lines of the appellants, that 'admittedly/prima facie amounted to negligence on the part of the appellants'. The High Court failed to appreciate that all these cases were actions in tort and negligence was required to be established firstly by the claimants. The mere fact that the wire of the electric transmission line belonging to Appellant 1 had snapped and the deceased had come in contact