HC dismisses writ petition under Article 226 due to disputed factual questions and lack of jurisdiction

The HC dismissed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, holding that it should not entertain cases involving disputed questions of fact. The Court relied on SC precedent establishing that when factual disputes arise, the High Court's writ jurisdiction is inappropriate. Since the relief sought depended on resolving factual controversies, the petition was deemed unsuitable for adjudication under Article 226. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of proper jurisdiction.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to adjudicate disputed questions of fact arising from a contractual supply and payment dispute.Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ directing payment of the claimed amount under the rate contract and interest for delay.Whether inspection and verification reports submitted by the petitioner suffice to establish entitlement to payment without further factual inquiry.Whether alternate remedies exist that preclude the exercise of writ jurisdiction in contractual disputes involving disputed facts.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

On the issue of writ jurisdiction over disputed facts, the Court held that "where disputed questions of facts are involved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy."The Court declined to issue a writ directing payment of the claimed amount and interest, as the entitlement depended on disputed factual questions that could not be resolved in writ proceedings.The Court found that the petitioner failed to file sufficient documentary evidence to conclusively establish inspection and acceptance of the supplied goods, thus precluding summary relief.The Court emphasized that contractual disputes with disputed facts are better adjudicated by the agreed forum or civil courts, and the existence of alternate remedies weighs against writ relief.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied settled legal principles established by the Supreme Court, including the rulings in Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Sukamani Das and subsequent cases, which hold that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised to decide disputed factual issues.The Court relied on precedent that distinguishes cases where negligence or infringement of fundamental rights is "on the face of it" from cases requiring detailed factual inquiry, holding that the latter are unsuitable for writ petitions.The Court noted the importance of respecting the parties' agreed dispute resolution mechanisms and the expertise of civil courts in matters involving technical assessments and contractual measurements.No dissent or doctrinal shift was indicated; the judgment reaffirmed the established doctrine limiting writ jurisdiction in contractual disputes involving factual controversies.

---