Article 226 writ relief cannot secure a declaration against enforcement where disputed facts decide applicability of the prize chit law.

Article 226 writ jurisdiction was considered an unsuitable route for obtaining a declaration that a business did not fall within the definitions in the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 or for restraining enforcement authorities from acting. The court noted that such relief would depend on disputed facts about the nature of the petitioners' activities and whether the statutory provisions were attracted. It declined to grant a declaration in rem in favour of private parties in writ proceedings and held that the authorities could proceed according to law, with the petitioners free to raise their defences in any proceedings initiated against them.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be used to obtain a declaration that the petitioners' business does not fall within the definitions in section 2(c) and section 2(e) of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and to restrain the law-enforcing authorities from taking action.

Analysis: The relief sought was a declaration about the petitioners' status and the legality of possible enforcement action. Such a determination would require examination of disputed factual matters concerning the nature of the petitioners' activities and whether those activities attract the statutory provisions invoked by the authorities. The writ court declined to grant a declaration in rem in favour of private persons in exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction, holding that the proper course was for the authorities to proceed in accordance with law and for the petitioners to raise their defences in the proceedings, if any, initiated against them.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to the declaratory and injunctive relief sought in the writ petition.

---