A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the appropriate remedy for claiming compensation against private individuals or entities for tortious acts, which must instead be addressed through civil litigation.

6.The Warden CMS Hostel, Vadakkankulam, Tirunelveli District – 627 116. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to provide compensation to the petitioner for the death of his son namely Sermadurai due to the accident based on the Petitioner’s representation, dated 22.09.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Selvan For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai

1 to 4 Spl.Govt.Pleader For Respondent-5 : Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to provide compensation for the death of his son, namely Sermadurai in an accident, pursuant to the representation of the petitioner dated 22.09.2025.

2.Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, it can be seen that there is a Well within the campus of the 6th respondent, which is a private hostel. It is the case of the petitioner that the 6th respondent had involved the petitioner's son, who was staying in the hostel in the cleaning process and during the same on 08.07.2025 the petitioner's son fell into the Well and died. A case in Crime No.671 of 2025 was also registered by the Inspector of Police, Panagudi Police Station. Therefore, this writ petition is filed seeking compensation.

3.It can be seen that the deceased was studying in the 5th respondent school which is a private school.

4.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent school submit that the 6th respondent has got no truck with the 5th respondent school. On their own, the student was staying in that hostel. If anything happened in the hostel, the 5th respondent is not liable.

5.This writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage without issuing notice to the 6th respondent and the observations made by this Court with reference to the facts said out by the petitioner will not be treated as a finding of fact by this Court.

6.If it is the case of the petitioner that while staying in the hostel, the warden of the 6th respondent hostel committed negligence involving the petitioner's son in the cleaning process and on account of which, the petitioner's son has died, then it is for the petitioner to seek compensation as against the 6th respondent before the appropriate forum which will be filing of a civil suit.

7.This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot entertain a claim as against a private person. As far as the official respondents are concerned, if this case is covered by the various Government Orders issued under the Chief Minister's Relief Fund or Rehabilitation scheme, the same shall be considered and if any ex gratia amount is liable to be released, the same can be released, since it is pleaded that the petitioner is also a person below the poverty line.

8.In view thereof, the second respondent, namely, the District Collector, Tirunelveli, shall consider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.09.2025 for any ex gratia amount, if permissible and admissible as per any one of the Government Order or schemes framed under the Chief Minister's Victim Relief Fund or Rehabilitation scheme etc. It will also be open for the petitioner to proceed against the 6th respondent or any other person responsible for grant of compensation by way of appropriate proceedings. No costs.