Writ jurisdiction and disputed facts: courts should not quash contract cancellations where evidence is needed.

Writ jurisdiction is inappropriate for quashing a contract cancellation where the core dispute turns on seriously contested facts requiring evidence. The Court noted that whether the respondent was prevented from performing the contractual work was hotly disputed and could not be resolved on assertions alone. In such circumstances, the writ court should not make factual findings or grant substantive contractual relief, and the parties must seek adjudication before a civil court of competent jurisdiction. An earlier proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was noted only as background.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court ought to have exercised writ jurisdiction to quash the cancellation of the contract and direct continuance of the respondent in the contractual work despite seriously disputed questions of fact.

Analysis: The factual controversy as to whether the respondent was prevented from performing the contract by the appellant was hotly disputed and could not be resolved without taking evidence. In such circumstances, the writ court was not the proper forum to return factual findings or grant substantive relief on the basis of contested assertions. The parties could have sought adjudication before a civil court of competent jurisdiction. The existence of an earlier proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was noted only as part of the factual background.

Conclusion: The High Court ought not to have exercised writ jurisdiction in the face of seriously disputed questions of fact, and the challenge to the appellant's action was not fit for decision in writ proceedings.

---