Writ jurisdiction is inappropriate for customs auction disputes turning on contested facts and contractual terms.

A writ petition under Article 226 was considered unsuitable where the challenge to a customs auction and claim for refund depended on disputed facts and the contractual terms of the auction. The controversy involved whether weight was orally disclosed, whether there was a shortfall in quantity, whether the auction terms created a concluded contract with full knowledge, and whether oral assertions could alter the written bargain. Because these issues required evidence and could not be resolved on affidavits alone, writ jurisdiction was held inappropriate for what was in substance a contractual dispute.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the customs auction and refund of amounts paid could be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the disputed factual questions and the contractual nature of the auction transaction.

Analysis: The relief claimed turned on contested facts relating to the alleged oral disclosure of weight, the applicability of customs procedure and notifications, the alleged shortfall in quantity, and the effect of the auction terms. The controversy could not be resolved on affidavits alone and would require evidence to determine whether the weight was disclosed, whether the petitioner entered into a concluded contract with full knowledge of the terms, and whether the petitioner could vary the written bargain by relying on oral assertions. In such circumstances, the writ jurisdiction was considered inappropriate for adjudicating what was in substance a contractual dispute involving serious factual controversy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for deciding the disputed contractual and factual issues, and the petitioner was not entitled to the claimed relief under Article 226.

---