IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16778 of 2006 Between: T. Nagaiah & another. … Petitioners And The Chairman, A.P. Transmission Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for Petitioners: Sri Srinivasa Rao Veeramachaneni Counsel for the respondents: Sri O. Manohar Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16778 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation for the death of the petitioner’s son, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Veeramachaneni, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the respondents. The son of the petitioners, who was aged 19 years, met with a tragic death on 05.04.2005 when he came into contact with a live wire while playing cricket. While the petitioners alleged negligence on the part of the respondents as the cause of death, in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, the said allegation is denied. The respondents maintained that when the deceased was playing cricket along with others, the ball fell in the area around which a fencing was raised by the owner of an agricultural land, that the service wire pertaining to the Rural Water Supply borewell accidentally touched the fencing wire due to gale and that the deceased while retrieving the ball came into contact with the fence to which the electricity has passed resulting in his death. From the pleadings of the parties, it is evident that the allegation of negligence on the part of the respondents is in dispute. Today, I have disposed of Writ Petition No.511 of 2006, wherein detailed reasons have been assigned for holding that in cases where disputed facts are involved, a writ petition is not an appropriate remedy and that the aggrieved party has to approach the competent civil Court for claiming compensation. For the same reasons, as are mentioned in the said order, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent civil court for claiming compensation. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.21016 of 2006 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 29.07.2010. ES