Writ jurisdiction cannot be used to pursue disputed benami allegations already pending in a civil suit.

A writ petition seeking directions to income tax and other authorities to investigate and prosecute alleged benami and tax-related real-estate transactions was held not entertainable where the controversy involved disputed questions of fact already pending in a civil suit. The Court noted that evidence, pleadings and cross-examination were available in the civil proceedings, and declined to conduct a parallel factual enquiry in writ jurisdiction. It found no basis to draw adverse inference against the official respondents and held that the petition was being used to bolster the civil suit, amounting to abuse of process. The writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking a direction to the income tax and other authorities to initiate action, investigate, and prosecute alleged benami and tax-related transactions was entertainable when the controversy involved disputed questions of fact already arising in a civil suit.

Analysis: The petitioners sought to use the writ jurisdiction to compel investigation and prosecution against private respondents on the basis of disputed allegations arising from real-estate transactions. The pleadings showed that the matter was already the subject of a civil suit, where evidence, pleadings, and cross-examination would be available to establish the parties' respective claims. On the material placed, no adverse inference could be drawn against the official respondents, and the Court declined to undertake a parallel enquiry into factual controversies better suited for trial. The Court held that the writ petition was being used as a device to bolster the civil suit and that such use of the Court's process amounted to abuse.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertainable and was dismissed at admission stage.

---