Writ petition for tortious compensation is not maintainable where negligence and quantum of damages require oral evidence.

The petitioner, widow of Dr. Mahendra Dadoria, filed a writ petition seeking ₹60 Lacs in compensation following her husband's death.

On 12.10.2006, following a VVIP visit to Gwalior, traffic barricades were allegedly left on the road without cautionary lights or reflectors.

While returning from duty on his motorcycle, the deceased collided with these barricades, sustained head injuries, and succumbed on 18.10.2006.

An FIR was registered under Section 304-A of the IPC against PWD officials (Respondents 4 and 5), who were ultimately acquitted on 21.05.2009.

The petitioner invoked Article 226, alleging negligence and violation of Article 21.

The State contested the petition, arguing the accident resulted from the deceased's own negligence and that disputed questions of fact require a civil suit rather than writ jurisdiction.

1. Whether the respondent authorities can be held liable for negligence and directed to pay compensation in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

2. Whether the claim for damages involving disputed questions of fact is "entertainable" by the High Court or if the petitioner must be relegated to an alternative civil remedy.

The Court applied the principles of tortious liability of public authorities as established in Rajkot Municipal Corpn. v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum, distinguishing between misfeasance (positive wrongful acts) and non-feasance (omissions), noting that public authorities are generally not liable for non-feasance unless a specific statutory duty is breached.

It relied on Nilabati Bahera v. State of Odisha regarding the maintainability of writ petitions for compensation for human rights violations.

The court applied the distinction between "maintainability" and "entertainability" as elucidated in M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum- Assessing Authority, which grants courts discretion to refuse even maintainable petitions if an efficacious alternative remedy exists.

The Court reasoned that while the petition is "maintainable," it is not "entertainable" because determining negligence in this specific context involves complex, disputed questions of fact.

Specifically, the court noted that to establish liability, one must prove whether a specific duty of care was owed, if the danger was foreseeable, and if the act constituted misfeasance or mere non-feasance.

These determinations—including the precise location of barricades, the quality of street lighting, and potential contributory negligence by the deceased—cannot be adjudicated solely on affidavits and require the leading of evidence in a trial.

The Court further observed that consistent High Court precedents establish that the quantification of damages (here, ₹60 Lacs) is beyond the scope of Article 226 and must be determined by a Civil Court.

However, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach a competent civil court, directing that she be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for the period the matter was pending before the High Court.

All contentions were kept open for the civil trial.