* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 3548/2007 % Date of Decision: 10 July, 2009 # GUNMAN SINGH RAWAT ..... PETITIONER ! Through: Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate. VERSUS $ B.S.E.S. RAJDHANI POWER LTD. & ORS. .....RESPONDENTS ^ Through: Mr. I.S. Alag for the respondent No. 1 Mr. Sameer Nandwani for respondent No. 3. CORAM: Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL 1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or directions against the respondents to pay him suitable and exemplary compensation for the permanent injuries suffered by him due to burst of transformer of respondent No. 1 on 25.07.2006 near his house in Gali No. 35, Indira Park Colony, New Delhi. 2 Respondent No. 1 has filed its counter affidavit in the case. In para 4 of the counter affidavit, respondent No. 1 has taken a stand that after complete inquiry and information gathered from site, it was found that the petitioner was spreading wet clothes in his balcony, which touched the D.D. fuse of the nearby transformer, causing burst of the transformer. Respondent No. 1 has denied negligence attributed to it. Respondent No. W.P.(C) No.3548/2007 Page 1 of 2 1, in fact, has attributed negligence on the petitioner due to which the transformer got burst. In view of this denial by respondent No. 1, the negligence alleged against respondent No. 1 becomes a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3 Broadly speaking, there are two questions that have to be determined before the relief claimed by the petitioner in this petition can be granted and they are (i) due to whose negligence the transformer near the house of the petitioner in Gali No. 35, Indira Park Colony, New Delhi, burst on 25.07.2006 and (ii) the quantum of damages that can be awarded to the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in the incident that took place on 25.07.2006 near his house. 4 In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and Ors. V. Sukamani Das (Smt.) and Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 298, the disputed questions of fact cannot be examined by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. Unless the question of negligence is first decided, the Court cannot go into the second question relating to quantum of damages. 6 In view of the above and having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, this writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a civil suit for recovery of damages as per law. The parties are left to bear their own costs. JULY 10, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J 'bsr' W.P.(C) No.3548/2007 Page 2 of 2