Writ jurisdiction and disputed arrest facts: High Court declined fact-finding on rival versions and dismissed the petition.

A writ petition under Article 226 alleging illegal arrest and breach of arrest safeguards could not be entertained where the material facts were disputed. The Court noted that issues such as service of notice, approval for arrest, place and time of arrest, signing of the arrest memo, disclosure of grounds of arrest, and police conduct were foundational facts requiring evidence. It held that such rival versions could not be resolved in writ proceedings on pleadings alone, and that the High Court would not undertake fact-finding in this jurisdiction. The petition was therefore held not maintainable on disputed facts and dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be entertained to examine allegations of illegal arrest and violation of arrest safeguards when the material facts were disputed.

Analysis: The petition rested on contested assertions regarding service of notice, approval for arrest, place and time of arrest, signing of the arrest memo, disclosure of grounds of arrest, and the alleged conduct of the police during investigation. The Court held that these were foundational facts requiring evidence and could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings. In such circumstances, the High Court would not undertake a fact-finding inquiry or resolve rival versions on the basis of pleadings alone.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on disputed facts and was dismissed.

---