Writ jurisdiction cannot decide disputed reward claims for a tax informer where no enforceable right is shown.

A tax informer's claim for reward involved disputed facts and was not suitable for adjudication under Article 226. The absence of a response to representations did not, by itself, create an enforceable right to the reward. As the controversy required factual determination, the writ petition was not entertainable, and any remedy lay in civil proceedings by way of a suit. No relief was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's claim for reward as a tax informer could be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and whether the petitioner was entitled to the claimed reward.

Analysis: The claim involved a large number of disputed facts. The absence of a reply to the representations did not by itself establish an enforceable right to receive the reward. The controversy was not suitable for determination in writ proceedings and, if any remedy existed, it lay in civil proceedings by way of a suit.

Conclusion: The claim for reward was not entertainable in writ jurisdiction and no relief was granted to the petitioner.

---