The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. to pay compensation of Rs 55 lakh for damages allegedly caused by a fire originating from an electricity transformer. The Court held that the claim involved disputed questions of fact which could only be determined based on evidence, and thus could not be entertained in a writ petition.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan observed that the determination of the cause of the fire and the quantum of damages required evidentiary proof.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Mohd Rafeek, approached the High Court through Writ-C No. 29227 of 2025. The petitioner contended that a transformer belonging to the electricity department, installed in front of his shop, caught fire. He alleged that this fire spread to his shop and godown, causing significant loss.
The petitioner estimated the damages at Rs 55,00,000 (Fifty-Five Lakh Rupees). He had submitted a representation dated May 22, 2025, to the authorities regarding the compensation but received no relief, prompting him to file the writ petition.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioner, Advocates Amit Kumar Shukla and Rahul Kumar Tripathi, prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the Managing Director, Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., to ensure the payment of the compensation amount. They specifically sought a direction to the respondent to decide the petitioner’s application dated May 22, 2025, within a fixed timeframe.
The respondents, represented by the Chief Standing Counsel (C.S.C.) and Advocate Pranjal Mehrotra, opposed the petition.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court scrutinized the nature of the relief sought, noting that it hinged entirely on factual determinations regarding the cause of the fire and the extent of the loss. The Bench reasoned that such inquiries are beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction, which is generally reserved for the enforcement of fundamental or legal rights where facts are not in dispute.
In its order, the Court observed:
“The question as to whether the petitioner has suffered damages to the extent of Rs.55 lacs due to the fire in the shop and go-down of the petitioner because of the fact that transformer of the electricity department installed in front of the shop of the petitioner caught fire, is a disputed question of fact, which can be determined only on the basis of evidence on record.”
The Court further noted:
“In such view of the fact, the relief prayed for by the petitioner in the present petition cannot be granted by this Court.”
Decision
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. However, safeguarding the petitioner’s right to seek redressal through the correct legal channels, the Bench granted “liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy available under law.”
Case Details:
Case Title: Mohd Rafeek Versus State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Case Number: WRIT-C No. 29227 of 2025
Coram: Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan
Counsel for Petitioner: Amit Kumar Shukla, Rahul Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondents: C.S.C., Pranjal Mehrotra
Citation: 2025:AHC:227883-DB
