WP(C) 4003/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BARUAH. Heard Mr. J.C. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Sarma , learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 2 and Mr. J. Sarma, learned couns el for the respondent No. 3. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. issued an advertisement for allo tment of KSK dealership at Saboti to Lilabari Road of Lakhimpur district under d efence category. The petitioner being an eligible candidate applied for allotmen t of KSK dealership as indicated above. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of submitting the application she was unable to submit the Director Ge neral Resettlement Certificate (for short DGRC) for allotment of such dealership under the defence category and as such she submitted an application praying the respondent authority to allow her to submit the certificate at the time of inte rview. Subsequently, she obtained the said certificate from New Delhi from the c oncerned department issued on 5-5-2008. Having in the power and possession of th e said certificate, the petitioner approached the respondent No. 2 herein for su bmission, who however, assured the petitioner that the same could be filed at th e time of interview. On 14-9-2009 the petitioner received a letter from the resp ondent No. 2, whereby her candidature was rejected on account of non-submission of DGR Certificate. On inquiry, the petitioner came to know that the interview w as already over on 8-9-2009 and such dealership was allotted to the private resp ondent No. 3 through an interview. It is contended by the petitioner that privat e respondent No. 3 is not an eligible candidate for having a KSK dealership unde r defence category on the ground that on the date of submission of the applicati on for such dealership she was not a widow. After the death of husband of the pr ivate respondent No. 3 she remarried one, Sri Bipin Taye and from their wedlock she has given birth to Smt. Pronali Taye on 26-7-2005 and Sri Kirpan Ch. Taye on 5-3-2009. The factum of remarriage of the private respondent has been concealed while submitting application for allotment of dealership. It is contended by th e writ petitioner that the private respondent No. 3 being remarried is not a wid ow on the date of submission of the application and accordingly the allotment or der issued in favour of the respondent No. 3 is liable to be set aside and quash ed. Such contention has been made by the writ petitioner on the basis of a certi ficate issued by Sri Tulan Ch. Duta, Lat Gaonbura, Mouza Nowboisa, Kakhimpur(Ann exure-10). In view of the contention raised by the petitioner, this court by order dated 23-4-2010 issued a direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to hold a n inquiry into the allegation made by the petitioner about the marital status of the respondent No. 3. The respondents accordingly conducted an inquiry and subm itted an affidavit-in-opposition indicating therein that the respondent No. 3 at the time of submission of the application for allotment of dealership was remar ried to one Bipin Taye, the brother of her deceased husband. It is indicated tha t Jan Taye, petitioner’s first husband died on 6-2-2004 and Miss Pronali Taye wa s born on 26-7-2005, 18 (eighteen) months after the death of Jan Taye. Counter affidavit so filed by respondent No. 1 and 2 gives an in dication that respondent No. 3 at the time of filing of her application for allo tment of SKS dealership under defence category, she was not a widow. But on care ful perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 3, such c laim of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as petitioner has been refuted saying in ter alia therein that she was a widow at the time of submission of her applicati on for allotment of dealership. Respondent No. 3 in support of her contention ba sed on the certificate issued by Sri Tulan Ch. Dutta, Lat Gaonbura, Mouza Nowbo isa, Kakhimpur issued on 19-11-2009 (Annexure-B to the affidavit-in-opposition f iled on behalf of respondent No. 3). It is indicated therein that so far as his knowledge goes respondent No. 3 has not remarried second time. Therefore, from the contention of the petitioner as well as the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and private respondent No. 3 it would appear to us that there appears a disputed question of fact in regard to marital status of the res pondent No. 3. Petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 claimed that respon dent No. 3 is not a widow at the time of filing of the application for allotment of dealership while respondent No. 3 by her counter affidavit refuted such clai m. Disputed question of fact is not liable to be decided by a writ court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of Ind ia. For decision of such disputed question of fact appropriate remedy can be ava iled of by the writ petitioner before a Civil Court. This petition is accordingly stands dismissed, the same being in volved disputed question of fact. No cost.