Once negligence proved, inter se dispute not a ground for dismissing writ petition: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held once negligence has been established in a case, relief under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be denied merely on account of an inter se dispute between the respondents..The same was held by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V Kameswar Rao in a letters patent appeal against an order by a Single Judge Bench which rejected a writ petition due to “disputed questions of fact” arising out of a tiff between respondents..The writ pertained to the death of a 14-year-old boy who was electrocuted while playing cricket in a park. The boy had touched an electric cable lying under a high mast light pole in the park and had died on the spot..The father of the deceased child then moved the High Court under its writ jurisdiction to claim compensation. Before the Single Judge Bench, the two respondents – East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) and BSES -both washed their hands clean of the liability to maintain all electrical installation and equipment within the park..EDMC shrugged off the liability on the ground that it was BSES’s responsibility to maintain all electrical installation and equipment, and therefore it cannot be expected to pay compensation..BSES, on the other hand, argued that it’s duty was only limited to supply of electricity being charged, and that maintenance of the electrical installation and equipment within the park was the responsibility of EDMC..The Single Judge Bench held that although negligence appeared to be writ large in the case, the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 could not be invoked due the inter se dispute between the respondents. This Bench had relied on the Supreme Court decision in Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and Ors. v. Sukamani Das (Smt.) & Anr, which held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could not be invoked when there is a dispute of fact in a case..Allowing the appeal, the Court observed that the Single Judge Bench “committed a grave error” in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that there are disputed questions of fact..The Court noted that once occurrence of the incident and factum of death of the victim consequent to negligence are established, a writ petition cannot be dismissed merely because there is an inter se dispute between the respondents as to who is responsible for the accident or the negligence..“From the aforesaid, it is clear that merely because there is an inter se dispute between the respondents, it would not disentitle the petitioners from claiming the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as negligence resulting in breach of Fundamental Rights is held to be established.”.The Court stated that in such a situation, both the respondents should be held jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation, and thereafter it should be left “to them to work out their inter se dispute, particularly so when both the respondents are functioning under the control of the Government”..The Court finally awarded Rs 27,38,607.81 to the father of the deceased child as compensation, which would be paid jointly and severally by EDMC and BSES..It was thus decreed,.“The aforesaid amount of Rs.27,38,607.81 along with interest @ 9% per annum shall be paid jointly and severally by the respondents. At the first instance, both the respondents shall pay 50% of the aforesaid amount and thereafter they are granted liberty to work out the inter se dispute between them and settle their claim in accordance with law. 31. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands allowed.”.The appellant was represented by Advocates Uday Gupta, Shivani Lal, Hiren Dasan and MK Tripathi..EDMC was represented by Advocate Jagdish Sagar. BSES was represented by Advocates Manish Srivastava and Moulshree Shukla..Read the Judgement: