IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2057 of 2010 (M/S) M/S Royal Traders, Mandir Marg, Gopeshwar District Chamoli … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others … Respondents Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate along with Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Brief Holder for the respondents. (Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.) Heard Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate along with Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Brief Holder on behalf of the respondents. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to obstruct in the smooth running of the business by the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner himself has stated in paragraph No.18 of the writ petition that the petitioner has unnecessarily been stopped from running the shop at the behest of the local shopkeepers who feel that their business will be affected in view of the lesser rates for which the goods were being sold by the petitioner. The petitioner made a complaint to the police authorities for taking action against them. But the appropriate and efficacious remedy available with the petitioner is to file a civil suit against those persons, either they are private persons or government officials, who are creating hindrance in running of his business. In writ jurisdiction, no such relief can be granted because the disputed question of facts cannot be decided in a writ petition, and for that purpose the petitioner has to adduce the evidence to prove his case and such evidence can be adduced in a civil suit. Therefore, the petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy available with the petitioner. Dated: 07-12-2010 (B.S. Verma, J.) ISB