Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be exercised for compensation in cases of negligence by state functionaries when facts are not disputed, emphasizing enforcement of legal rights.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of learned single Judge passed on July 21st, 1995 in Writ Petition No. 2488/94. The petitioner, who is an illiterate girl of 16 years of age, filed the writ petition against the respondents seeking the indulgence of the writ Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for the direction to the respondents by way of writ of Mandamus to pay compensation of Rs. 4.50 lacs to the petitioner for committing negligence in maintaining the electric high tension line passing through the fields, including the small piece of Rice growing land belonging to the father of the petitioner. It is alleged that in the month of September, 1992, while the petitioner along with her father and some others were harvesting Rice crop in their field, petitioner suddenly came in contact with a high tension live electric wire which had fallen down from the Poles. This gave a severe shock in her arm causing serious burns. Petitioner fell unconscious in the field. She was rushed to Bone and Joint Hospital, Barzalla in the state of unconsciousness, where she was hospitalised for two months. Her right fore - arm was amputated resulting in causing permanent disablement to the petitioner. It is stated that whole right arm of the petitioner has been rendered useless. Medical certificates have been enclosed with the petition. It has been pleaded that all this happened due to carelessness and negligence of respondents 4 to 7 who failed to discharge their duties in a manner they were expected to do. This accident would not have taken place if the timely action by the respondents to restore the line to its earlier position had been taken. Their failure to do so obviously tantamount to negligence and dereliction of duty. She has stated that she belongs to a poor family. Her mother was a paralytic patient for ten years who died and her father is an old man who cannot look after her. She, therefore, filed the writ petition demanding the aforementioned compensation. Writ petition came to be dismissed in limine by the writ - court mainly on the ground that the question involved is a disputed one and the disputed question of fact can be resolved only by the Civil Court. The writ jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked for this purpose.

2. Heard learned counsel in detail and we have perused the entire record.

3. From the rival arguments advanced before us following questions are formulated for the adjudication of the case : -
1. Whether writ jurisdiction can be invoked under Art.226 of the Constitution for demanding compensation in a case like the present one?
2. Whether in the present case there is any dispute regarding the facts;
3. In case it is held that the writ is maintainable in the present form and there is no dispute on facts, what is the entitlement of the petitioner for compensation?

4. The first question relating to the jurisdiction of the Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India to entertain writs demanding compensation is the star point, rather the pivot around which the fate of the whole case revolves. It is on this point, writ Court has declined to entertain the petition for compensation on the ground that in such cases where facts are disputed, rights and obligations of citizens are involved, petitioner can seek remedy under ordinary civil law and cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently submitted that jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked where there is a civil liability, where disputed facts are involved as to whether the