WP(C) 1205/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.K.SHARMA Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a directio n to the Respondents to unlock the business establishment of the petitioner unde r holding No.GMC 827 situated at Kalapahar, Guwahati-16. The business establishm ent of the petitioner is in the name and style of Ms. Shakti Enterprise. As per the averments made in the writ petition, some police personnel ca me to the business establishment of the petitioner and put a lock on 18.2.2008. By Annexure- E to the writ petition, the trade licence of the petitioner was ren ewed by the Gauhati Municipal Corporation up to 31.3.2008. The trade licence wa s renewed by an order dated 1.3.2008. According to the petitioner, he has been r unning the business under the name and style of M/s. Shakti Enterprise since 199 7. Although it is the case of the petitioner that the police personnel put the l ock on the said business establishment on 18.2.2008, but as to who are the polic e personnel has neither been indicated in the writ petition nor the concerned po lice personnel have been made party Respondent in the writ petition. However, on a prayer made by the petitioner, by an order dated 9.4.2008 the petitioner was allowed to implead the Sr. Superintendent of Police (City) Guwahati as a party R espondent (Respondent No.4) and Ms.R.Chakraborty learned Addl. Govt. Advocate wa s directed to obtain necessary instructions in the matter. During the pendency of the writ petition, one Padmananda Sarma filed Mis c. application No.1170/2008 praying him for impleading him as a party Respondent in the writ petition. The prayer has been allowed. According to the said impleaded Respondent, the facts narrated in the wr it petition are not correct. It is his stand that he has been running the busine ss establishment since 1989. According to him, the business was established unde r the name and style of M/S. Krishna Furniture House. He has also referred to th e Title Suit No.63/2008 in which Misc.(J) Case No. 78/2008 has also been filed. According to the said Respondent, the aforesaid Title Suit has been instituted o n being provoked eviction from the business establishment by one Satyender Sarma stated to be the brother of the petitioner. Upon referring to the Schedule to the Title Suit, Mr.A.K.Bora, learned c ounsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute involved in the Tile Suit has got nothing to do in the present case and to the schedule to the land pertainin g to business of the petitioner under the name and style of M/S. Shakti Enterpri se. The above are all disputed questions of fact and this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot adjudicate the same. Moreover, the only plea raised in the writ petition is that the afore said business establishment of the petitioner was illegally locked by the police personnel on 18.2.2008. As per the written instructions furnished to the learne d Govt. Advocate by the Sr. Superintend of Police (City), Guwahati , no police p ersonnel is involved towards locking of the business establishment of the petiti oner . If that be so, the plea of the petitioner as has been raised in the writ petition falls through. From the above it is not really discernable as to who has put the lock i n the business establishment of the petitioner. It is the specific case of the p etitioner that some police personnel came to the business establishment on 18.2. 2008 and put the lock. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the police that no such lock has been put on the business establishment of the petitioner. The basis on which the writ petition is founded having been denied by th e police, there is no question to issue any direction to the police to unlock th e business establishment of the petitioner. It will open for the petitioner to a ct in the matter in accordance with law.