IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 16209 of 2002 Between: Mrs.Naseem Begum W/o.Late Md.Shareef R/o.H.No.13-1-1235/25/A , Jirra , Asifnagar Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govr Of A.P Rep by its Principal Secretary Home Dept , Secretariat Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner Of Police Hyderabad. 3 Mr.P.Srinivas Traffic Putlibowli , Police Station. 4 Mr.Anjaneyulu Traffic, Putlibowli Police Station. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to May be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4as wholly arbitrary illegal and violative of Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs to the petitioner towards the loss of earning and mental anjoy suffered by them on account of the death Mohd.shareef on 10-8-2002 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SHARAT KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16209 of 2002 ORAL ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction by way of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to the petitioner on account of loss of earnings suffered by the death of her husband late Mohd. Shareef on 10.8.2002 due to the illegal action on the part of respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that her late husband was doing petty fruit vending business, vending fruits on a mobile cart at Mozamjahi Market area. It is stated that on 30.7.2002, respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are Sub-Inspector of Police and Head Constable of Traffic Police Station, Putlibowli, ordered the late husband of the petitioner to vacate the place immediately and when her husband was closing the deal of selling fruits and trying to go, the fourth respondent all of a sudden enraged and tried to snatch away the petromax light being used by her late husband and in the said scuffle, the kerosene in the petromax light was spread and resulted in a fire accident and grievous burn injuries to the late husband of the petitioner. Immediately the husband of the petitioner was taken to C.D.R. Hospitals and thereafter admitted in Osmania General Hospital. Ultimately the husband of the petitioner was succumbed to burn injuries on 10.8.2002. It is the grievance of the petitioner that her husband died in the fire accident only on account of the illegal action on the part of respondent Nos.3 and 4. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a direction for payment of compensation as she lost her husband, who was the only breadwinner of the family. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that Mohd. Shareef, the late husband of the petitioner, who was selling fruits on the footpath and road margin, opposite to erstwhile Vikranti Theatre in a petromax light, met with an accident while putting off the petromax light while removing the articles kept on the road by him as per the instructions of the third respondent. To that effect, basing on the statement of the late husband of the petitioner, a case in Crime No.465 of 2002 of Afzalgunj Police Station was registered on 31.7.2002. Even in the dying declaration of the late husband of the petitioner, recorded by the learned XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on 31.7.2002, there is no such allegation against respondent Nos.3 and 4. 4. Heard Sri S.Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Having regard to the pleas raised in the writ petition, the only question that falls for consideration is whether the husband of the petitioner died on account of scuffle between him and respondent Nos.3 and 4? 6. While it is the case of the petitioner that her husband died in the fire accident that occurred due to the illegal action on the part of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in removing the petromax light, on the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that while putting off the petromax light, fire was caught to the clothes of the late husband of the petitioner. 7. I have perused a copy of the dying declaration of the late husband of the petitioner. Even in the said dying declaration, there is no such allegation of illegally removing the petromax light or taking place of any scuffle between the late husband of the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4. In the said dying declaration, it is merely stated that when he was trying to put off the petromax light, all of a sudden kerosene came out and he was caught fire. In view of the said declaration and also the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit, there is a serious dispute with regard to the cause of death of the late husband of the petitioner. 8. Though it is the case of the petitioner that the accident occurred only on account of the illegal action on the part of respondent Nos.3 and 4, in view of the counter affidavit and also the dying declaration recorded by the learned Magistrate, it cannot be said that the accident occurred only on account of the scuffle between the late husband of the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4. In view of the serious dispute with regard to the cause of the accident, in the absence of any proof or evidence, it is not possible for this Court to entertain the present writ petition filed by the petiltioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to record any definite finding in favour of the petitioner. 9. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition to grant the relief sought by the petitioner for payment of compensation towards the death of her husband in the fire accident that occurred on account of the illegal action on the part of respondent Nos.3 and 4. 10. For the foregoing, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 03-06-2009 Msr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16209 of 2002 03-06-2009 Msr