CWP-17185 IN TH 231 Harjinder Ka Punjab State CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. of the Consti the nature of 06.07.2022 ( grievance of Further prayi the official re of the deceas 1 185-2023 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA CWP Date der Kaur VERSUS State Transmission Corporation Limit HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. L.S Lakhanpal, Advocate fo Mr. T.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has be Constitution of India for issuance of ture of certiorari for quashing the im 022 (Annexure P-12) passed by res ce of the petitioner regarding family r praying for issuance of a writ in the icial respondents to grant family pens deceased Sarabjit Singh. NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CWP-17185-2023 Date of Decision: January 13, 2026 .....Petitioner SUS Limited and others ..Responden HARPREET SINGH BRAR for the petitioner. the respondents-PSTCL. been filed under Article 226/227 ce of an appropriate writ or order in the impugned speaking order dated by respondent No.2 vide which the family pensions were not redressed. in the nature of mandamus directing y pension to the petitioner being wife 2026 itioner ondents /227 der in dated h the essed. ecting g wife PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17185 2. deceased hus Kaur, who un one female ch parents took Sh. Sarabjit ceremonies 10.06.2009, record as An petitioner him of the petitio attention of submits that, advised to su the Sub-Stati further place the aforesaid to receive fa documents w Sh. Sarabjit regard is plac P-7). Despite documents, n 2 185-2023 Learned counsel for the petition ed husband of the petitioner was earlie ho unfortunately died in the year 200 ale child was born. After the demise took custody of the minor child. Th rabjit Singh solemnized their marriag nies on 10.06.2009. A copy of t , issued by the Granthi of Gur Annexure P-1. It is further contend ner himself requested the Superintend petitioner’s name in the service reco n of this Court to letter dated 24.0 s that, in response to the said reques d to submit an application for change o Station where he was posted at the places reliance upon the affidavit (A resaid submissions. It is submitted tha eive family pension, having furnish ents which clearly establish that she is rabjit Singh and was fully dependen is placed upon the dependent certifica espite submission of the dependent ents, neither has the petitioner’s na etitioner, inter alia, submits that the s earlier married to one Smt. Sharanjit 2008, and out of the said wedlock, emise of late Smt. Sharanjit Kaur, her Thereafter, the petitioner and late arriage according to Sikh rites and of the marriage certificate dated f Gurudwara Sahib, is available on ontended that the late husband of the rintending Engineer for incorporation e record. Learned counsel draws the 24.06.2020 (Annexure R-3/7) and request, the deceased employee was ange of nominee through the office of at the relevant time. Learned counsel avit (Annexure R-3/1) to substantiate ted that the petitioner is fully eligible urnished all available and requisite she is the legally wedded wife of late pendent upon him. Reliance in this ertificate dated 07.10.2020 (Annexure endent certificate and other relevant r’s name been incorporated in the at the aranjit dlock, r, her d late s and dated le on of the ration s the and e was fice of unsel ntiate ligible uisite of late n this exure levant in the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17185 service recor This compel CWP-9069- (Annexure P petitioner by the said orde (Annexure P 3. prayer made present writ adjudicated u therefore pra submits that, wedded wife is contended respondents. 05.07.2009, w 05.06.2009, i prior to the a discrepancy c further subm Smt. Sharanj Sarna, vide l 3 185-2023 record nor have the pensionary benef ompelled the petitioner to approach -2022, which was disposed of ure P-11), directing the respondents t ner by passing a speaking order. Howe d order, the respondents passed the im ure P-12), which is unsustainable in la Per contra, learned counsel fo made by learned counsel for the pe t writ petition involves disputed ques ated upon by this Court in exercis re prays for dismissal of the writ pe s that, as per the official record, late Sm d wife of late Sh. Sarabjit Singh and M ended that the petitioner submitted tw dents. The stamp paper for one suc 009, whereas the same was attested b 009, i.e. prior to the date of purchase o the actual date of marriage, which i ancy clearly indicates that the affidav submitted that the petitioner furnishe haranjit Kaur and Ms. Preet Kaur in vide letter diary No. 1843 dated 06.10 benefits been released in her favour. roach this Hon’ble Court by filing ed of vide order dated 05.05.2022 dents to decide the legal notice of the However, in purported compliance of impugned order dated 06.08.2022 le in law and liable to be set aside. sel for the respondents opposes the the petitioner on the ground that the d questions of fact, which cannot be xercise of its writ jurisdiction, and rit petition. Learned counsel further late Smt. Sharanjit Kaur is the legally and Ms. Preet Kaur is his daughter. It tted two affidavits in the office of the ne such affidavit was purchased on ested by the Executive Magistrate on rchase of the stamp paper as well as hich is stated to be 10.06.2009. This ffidavit is forged and fabricated. It is urnished the death certificates of late aur in the office of the Senior XEN, d 06.10.2021. The death certificate of avour. filing .2022 of the nce of .2022 es the at the ot be , and urther egally ter. It of the ed on ate on ell as . This It is f late XEN, ate of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17185 late Smt. Sh the concerne (Annexure P Sharanjit Ka authenticity o Kaur submit Registrar, Bi R-3/3), it wa Additional D vide letter d respondents, Kaur is fak circumstance passing a reas 4. perused the adjudication appreciation its jurisdictio undertake. 5. involved, a p proper remed 4 185-2023 t. Sharanjit Kaur was purportedly is cerned Registrar of Births and Death ure P-8), has stated that the record p jit Kaur is not traceable, thereby ticity of the said document. Further, th submitted by the petitioner was ve rar, Births and Deaths, and vide lette , it was reported that the said death ce onal District Registrar, Births and Dea tter dated 21.11.2021 (Annexure R dents, conclusively establishes that th is fake and void. In the backdrop stances, the claim of the petitioner was a reasoned and speaking order. I have heard the learned cou the case file with their able ass ation of the issues involved in the pr iation of disputed questions of fact, wh sdiction under Article 226 of the C It is settled law that where d ed, a petition under Article 226 of the remedy. A two-Judge Bench of the H edly issued on 05.12.2017; however, Deaths, vide letter dated 20.05.2020 cord pertaining to the death of Smt. reby casting serious doubt on the ther, the death certificate of Ms. Preet as verified from the office of the e letter dated 29.10.2021 (Annexure eath certificate was not issued by the d Deaths. The said fact was reiterated ure R-3/4), which, according to the that the death certificate of Ms. Preet ckdrop of the aforesaid facts and er was rejected by the respondents by d counsel for the parties and have le assistance. It transpires that the the present writ petition necessitates act, which this Court, while exercising the Constitution, is not equipped to ere disputed questions of facts are of the Constitution of India is not the the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P.S. ever, .2020 f Smt. n the . Preet f the exure by the erated to the et s and nts by have at the sitates cising ed to ts are ot the .P.S. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17185 Rathore v. S Y.K. Sabharw "16. In Das [( was, c compe neglige that th of an a it is th are inv proper due to not be decide the par it was clear d Consti this ge every c there i there, Article 6. Orissa Agro 725 while spe 5 185-2023 v. State of Haryana, (2005) 10 SC abharwal, has held as follows: 6. In Chairman, Grid Corpn. of Or as [(1999) 7 SCC 298] the question s, can the High Court under Article mpensation for death caused due gligence, when the liability was emp at the death had not occurred as a r an act of God or of acts of some oth is the settled legal position that wh e involved, a petition under Article oper remedy. Therefore, questions e to negligence or due to act of God t be decided properly on the basis o cided by the civil court after apprec e parties. In T.N. Electricity Board was held that when a disputed ques ear denial of any tortious liability, r onstitution may not be proper. The is general rule by observing that, it s ery case of tortious liability, recour ere is negligence on the face of it an ere, it cannot be said that there wil ticle 226 of the Constitution." Further a two-Judge Bench o gro Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs ile speaking through Justice Arijit Pas “9. A bare perusal o shows that there was clear no hand the High Court observe cannot be gone into a writ pe essence of dispute was breach o above conclusions the High Co writ petition. Surprisingly, th 0 SCC 1, speaking through Justice f Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) v. Sukamani stion which arose for consideration rticle 226 of the Constitution award due to electrocution on account of emphatically denied on the ground s a result of negligence, but because other persons. The Court held that t where disputed questions of facts ticle 226 of the Constitution is not a ions as to whether death occurred f God or of some third person could sis of affidavits only, but should be preciating the evidence adduced by ard v. Sumathi [(2000) 4 SCC 543] question of fact arises and there is ity, remedy under Article 226 of the The Court carved out exception to t, it should not be understood that in course must be had to a suit. When it and infringement of Article 21 is e will be any bar to proceed under nch of the Hon'ble Apex Court in d. Vs. Bharati Industries 2005 (12) ijit Pasayat, observed that as follows: al of the High Court's judgment r non-application of mind. On one erved that the disputed questions t petition. It was also noticed that ch of contract. After coming to the h Court should have dismissed the , the High Court proceeded to ustice ani tion ard t of und ause that facts ot a rred ould d be d by 543] re is f the n to at in hen 1 is nder urt in (12) ows: ent one ions that the the to PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17185 7. Chairman, G Das 1999 (7) the following 6 185-2023 examine the case solely on the w a very curious reasoning that th claimed that the value of article lakhs no details were specific affidavit filed before the High relevant details disputing clai given. Value of articles lifted by factual question. Where a co involved and the matter requir aspects, the High Court should Whether or not the High Cou under Article 226 of the Cons upon the nature of dispute a resolved without going into the Court should not entertain the the writ petition was primarily f of contract. Question whether t in the writ petition amounte obligation ultimately depends material evidence to be scrutin jurisdiction should not be exer Jain Plastic & Chemicals Ltd., 2 10. In a catena of cases dispute revolves round question be entertained under Article Chairman, Grid Corporation o Ors. v. Sukamani Das (Smt.) and (SC) : (1999(7) SCC 298).” A Two-Judge bench of the n, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd 9 (7) SCC 298, while speaking throu lowing observations: “6. In our opinion, the High entertaining the writ petitions cases for exercising power Constitution. The High Court w basis that as the deaths h electrocution as a result of the with snapped live wires of the e he writ petitioner's assertion and on at though the appellant-Corporation ticles lifted was nearly rupees 14.90 cifically given. From the counter igh Court it is crystal clear that claim of the writ petitioner were d by the writ petitioner is a disputed complicated question of fact is equires thorough proof on factual ould not entertain the writ petition. Court should exercise jurisdiction Constitution would largely depend te and if the dispute cannot be o the factual controversy, the High the writ petition. As noted above, rily founded on allegation of breach her the action of the opposite party ounted to breach of contractual nds on facts and would require rutinised and in such a case writ exercised. (See : State of Bihar v. td., 2002(1) SCC 216). cases this Court has held that where stions of fact, the matter ought not le 226 of the Constitution. (See : on of Orissa LTd. (GRIDCO) and ) and Anr., 1999(4) RCR (Civil) 174 f the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ltd. (Gridco) Vs. Smt. Sukamani g through Justice G.T Nanavati made High Court committed an error in ons even though they were not fit wer under Article 226 of the went wrong in proceeding on the s had taken place because of f the deceased coming into contact the electric transmission lines of the d on tion 4.90 ter- that ere uted ct is tual tion. tion end t be igh ove, each arty tual uire writ r v. here not ee : and 174 rt in ani made r in t fit the the of tact f the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17185 8. rendered by Shivam, 2021 10 SCC 69 Raghuvirpra SC 55. 9. appropriate the High Co reappreciate e 7 185-2023 appellants, that "admittedly negligence on the part of the app to appreciate that all these ca negligence was required to claimants. Mere fact that the w line belonging to the appellan deceased had come into contact itself sufficient for awarding co be examined whether the wire negligence of the appellants and deceased had come into contac specific defences raised by the a they deserved an opportunity t precautions were taken in mai and yet the wires had snapp beyond their control or unau parties or that the deceased had by the petitioners. These questio properly on the basis of affidav position that where disputed qu petition under Article 226 of th remedy. The High Court has no the disputes in these cases wer them and that there was no sub should have directed the writ p Court as it was done in OJC No Reliance in this regard may ed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 2021 SCC Online SC 562 , Union o 690 and of this Court in Sa irprasad Mehta and another, 1999( It is trite that a writ petition remedy for resolving disputed q gh Court cannot transform itself int eciate evidence or decide intricate factu tedly/prima facie amounted to e appellants". The High Court failed se cases were actions in tort and to be established firstly by the he wire of the electric transmission ellant No. 1 had snapped and the tact with it and had died was not by g compensation. It also required to ire had snapped as a result of any and under which circumstances the ntact with the wire. In view of the the appellants in each of these cases ity to prove that proper care and maintaining the transmission lines napped because of circumstances unauthorised intervention of third had not died in the manner stated estions could not have been decided fidavits only. It is the settled legal d questions of facts are involved a of the Constitution is not a proper as not and could not have held that were raised for the sake of raising substance therein. The High Court rit petitioners to approach the Civil No. 5229 of 1995. may be placed on the judgement rt in Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari ion of India v. Puna Hinda, (2021) Sanchalakshri v. Vijayakumar 999(1) SCT 88 (SC) : JT 1998(8) etition under Article 226 is not an uted questions of fact. In such cases, elf into a court of first instance to te factual disputes. to iled and the sion the t by d to any s the f the ases and lines nces hird ated ided egal ed a oper that sing ourt ivil ement wari 021) mar 8(8) ot an cases, ce to PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17185 10. the merits of 11. disposed of. January 13 P.C 8 185-2023 In view of the above, and with rits of the case, the present writ petitio Pending miscellaneous applicati ed of. 13, 2026 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : d without expressing any opinion on petition is dismissed. plications(s), if any, shall also stands (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No on on stands RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.16 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document