Writ jurisdiction and disputed facts cannot be used to challenge royalty demands while a parallel civil suit is pending.

A writ petition challenging a royalty demand was held unsuitable for adjudication where the core dispute depended on whether the gypsum removed contained less than 85% CaSO42H20, a factual issue requiring evidence. The extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 was not the proper forum for resolving such contested facts. The existence of a civil suit on the same subject matter also weighed against writ relief, because parallel remedies could not be pursued simultaneously for the same dispute. The challenge to the royalty demand therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the royalty demand was maintainable when the dispute turned on a question of fact and the appellant had also pursued a civil suit on the same matter.

Analysis: The question whether the gypsum removed by the appellant contained less than 85 per cent of CaSO42H20 was a factual controversy requiring evidence. In such circumstances, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was not an appropriate forum for adjudication. The existence of a civil suit on the same subject matter also weighed against granting writ relief, since the appellant could not pursue parallel remedies simultaneously for the same dispute.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for determination of the disputed factual issue and in view of the parallel civil remedy; the challenge to the royalty demand failed.

---