Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. The moot question that arises for consideration in wake of replies filed by the respondents is as to whether the reliefs as claimed by the petitioners can in fact be granted in these writ petitions, in view of the seriously disputed question fact which otherwise can only be proved by leading evidence.
8. The Court herein is not dealing with simple case where the dispute between the parties can be decided on the basis of affidavits and counter affidavits, as the Court would be required to determine as to whether the properties of the petitioners have in fact been damaged and only after determining the same, the individual claims with respect to the compensation, if any, can be determined. However, these questions can only be determined after the parties are given an opportunity to lead evidence, which includes cross-examining the .
247. These, however, are cases where the writ court was enforcing a statutory right or duty. These cases do not lay down that a writ court can interfere in a matter of contract only. Thus on the ground of maintainability the petition should have been dismissed."

16. Having referred to the aforesaid decisions, it is obligatory on our part to refer to two other authorities of this Court where it has been opined that under what circumstances a disputed question of fact can be gone into. In Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda (1969) 3 SCC 769, it has been held thus: (SCC p. 774, paras 14-16) "14. The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit- in-reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner's right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a .

and called for an affidavit-in- reply from the respondents, and should have proceeded to try the petition instead of relegating the appellants to a separate suit. (emphasis supplied)

17. In ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 553, a two-Judge Bench after referring to various judgments as well as the pronouncement in Gunwant Kaur (supra) and Century Spg. And Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council (1970) 1 SCC 582, has held thus: (ABL International case, SCC pp. 568-69 & 572, paras 19 & 29) "19. Therefore, it is clear from the above enunciation of law that merely because one of the parties to the litigation raises a dispute in regard to the facts of the case, the court entertaining such petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not always bound to relegate the parties to a suit. In the above case of Gunwant Kaur this Court even went to the extent of holding that in a writ petition, if the facts require, even oral evidence can be taken. This clearly shows that in an appropriate case, the writ court has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact and there is no absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition even if the same arises out of a contractual obligation and/or involves some disputed questions of fact.

10. It would be noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration the whole gamut of law, has thereafter made the following pertinent observations:-

"20. We have referred to the aforesaid authorities to highlight under what circumstances in respect of contractual claim or challenge to violation of contract can be entertained by a writ court. It depends upon facts of each case. The issue that had arisen in ABL International was that an instrumentality of a State was placing a different construction on the clauses of the contract of insurance and the insured was interpreting the contract differently. The Court thought it apt merely because something is disputed by the insurer, it should not enter into the realm of disputed questions of fact. In fact, there was no disputed question of fact, but it required interpretation of the terms of the contract of insurance. Similarly, if the materials that come on record from which it is clearly evincible, the writ court may exercise the power of judicial review but, a pregnant one, in the case at hand, the High Court has appointed a Commission to collect the evidence, .