Writ compensation for seized goods rejected where disputed facts and no proof of mala fide or unlawful detention prevented adjudication.

Compensation for alleged loss from detention and seizure of goods was held unsuitable for writ jurisdiction where the claim turned on disputed facts and the record did not establish mala fide or unlawful action by the statutory authorities. The Court noted that the condition of the goods at detention, the extent of deterioration, and the quantum of loss were not proved by reliable material, and the detention had occurred under statutory proceedings under the Trade Tax Act. In the absence of clear evidence enabling adjudication of damages, relief under Article 226 was refused and the compensation claim was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court could, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, award damages or compensation for the alleged loss caused by detention and seizure of goods when the claim involved disputed questions of fact and no material was available to establish mala fides.

Analysis: The petition sought monetary relief for the alleged deterioration and waste of seized goods. The record did not establish the condition of the goods at the time of detention, nor did it show that the authorities acted with mala fides or outside their statutory power. The detention and seizure occurred in the course of power exercised under the Trade Tax Act by statutory and quasi-judicial authorities, and the goods continued to remain under detention pursuant to orders passed in those proceedings. In the absence of reliable material to determine the extent of loss or to quantify compensation, the controversy could not be satisfactorily adjudicated in writ proceedings. The existence of disputed questions of fact and the absence of proof of illegal or mala fide action made the claim unsuitable for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The claim for damages or compensation was not maintainable in writ jurisdiction and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed because the alleged entitlement to compensation could not be determined on the material before the Court and the matter was not fit for relief under Article 226.

Ratio Decidendi: Compensation for detention of seized goods cannot be awarded in writ jurisdiction where the claim depends on disputed facts and the record does not establish mala fide or unlawful action by the statutory authorities.

---