AKHTAR ALIAS PAPPU Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJEEV Gupta, C. J. Mr. Amrish Agarwal and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocates for the pe titioner. Mr. N. C. Gupta, Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1. Mr. B. D. Upadhyaya, Advocate for respondents Nos. 2 and 3. They are heard.

(2.) PETITIONER Akhtar @ Pappu has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: "i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus com manding the respondents no. 1 and 2 to pay the compensation of Rs. 15, 48, 000/- to the petitioner on account of death of his son caused by electric shock due to negligence of respondents. II. Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. III. Award the cost of the writ peti tion to the petitioner through out. "

(3.) IN the present case, too, the fac tual averments made by the petitioner in regard to the incident are not admit ted and for a proper assessment of the compensation to be awarded to the pe titioner, leading of evidence in regard to the income of the deceased and the loss suffered by the petitioner would be nec essary. Thus, it is apparent their without resolving the disputed questions of fact, the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the writ petition cannot be granted. IN the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia, it is not per missible to resolve disputed questions of fact, as the same would require lead ing of evidence by the parties.