IN ’I‘Hb HIGH LOURI‘ 0b (,HHAFI‘bbARI-l BILASPUR Wnt Petttlon No 1088 of 2004 ' Pf’etigoner r \ R Vexsus espondents 1 (SB' Hon’ble Shri Satish K, Agnihotri J ) i 1 § x ‘ I , g _ (Passed on thls 21“ Day of January 2009) @Q » r r M/s haie (xuaml a pmpnetomhlp firm ' through propnetor G P Smgh aged about 38 years, S/o S1111 RMSmgh RIO 101 ‘ Aradhna Hagar Kotra Sultanabad Bhopal (M P) The State of CHhattisgarh thmugh the r Secretaly, Department of Health and Family Welfare, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (C.G.) The , Director, ‘ Medical Education W Chhamsgarh near D KS Bmdmg, Rmpur 3 ‘i (bG) ' The Dean, Pancht Jawahar Lal‘ Nehru 3 Medical College, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT Pbl‘ITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/ 227 OF THE. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Shn Shashank Thakur, Advocate for the pentloner Shn P K Bhadun, Panel Lawyer for the respondents , No.3, the peuuoner was prov1d1ng secunty semces. The petmoner Wlth the consent of the parhes, the matter 1s heard finally Learned counsel appeanng for the petltloner submlts that under the agreement entered between the pet1t10ner and the respondent was not paid the full amount ofwages of the employees posted as Seourity Guard in the premises of the respondent No.3. The pehtloner tiled a sumlar pehtlon earher m thls Coult bemg’ W PNo 294/2002 Wmch was d1sposcd of bv order dated 1 1 2004 \ Tlns Court after heanng learned counsel for the partles granted hberty to the petlttoner to make a representanon to the competent ié authonty mthm one month nom that day and 1t was dmected that ORDER J cannot be conveniently done: by the High Court i3 a writ petitién.” ! I i i 1 s i ‘ gFurther in the matter of P._R. Mutlidléaran and others vs. 1 Pmi Dharm‘gnanda Theatha.,,?a§ar and others“, the ‘ EHon’ble Supreme Comt observed that ‘ ‘ “12 .....A person could not éppmach- l the High Court for the purfposs cf ‘ determining such disputtd Questions of fact which were beyond the scope ‘ and purport of the jurisdiction of the High Court While , exercising writ jurisdiction as it” is also :involved determination of disputed questions of fact..... 13. Furthermore the jun'sdiction of the civil court is wide and plenaxy in a case of this natuxe, a writ proceeding cannot be a substitute for a civil suit.” éThe Supreme Court in the matter of iNobIe Resources Ltd. vs. State of Orissa and another“, While making the above position more clear observed as under : 18. 1t may, however, be true that Where serious disputed questions of fact are raised requiring appreciation of evidence; and, thus, for . determination thereof, examination of witnesses would be necessary; it may ‘not be convenient to decide the dispute in a proceeding under Article 226, of the Constitution of India.” ; In one of the recent decisions i.e. in the matter ot‘Moran M. ‘ Baselios Marthoma Mathews ll and other: vs. State of r - Kerola and others‘, the Supreme Court observed as l ; under : ‘ i y; “15. For the reasons stated hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that “the High Court committed a manifest error in going into the, disputed‘questions of title as also the disputed questions in regard to the rights of a particular group to manag the Churches, in exercise of its writ 2 (2006) 4 soc 501‘ 3 (2006) 1o scc 236,: " (2007) 6 SCC 517 \ ; e x F4, Junsd1ct10n, partlcularlv when such questions am pendmg consnicmuon before compemnt c1v11 courts ‘ i 1 K K l €10 l not express any oplmon on the ment oi case The dlsputcd facts cannot be decided by this Court as this Court has not wheremthal Thus, ttus petltlon ls dlsmlsssd as not mamtajnabls i- on account oi mvolvement of dlsputed quesuon of tacts However, \ liberty is resexved to the petitlonervto iake recourse to the i 1‘ jlirisdictional civil Court under provisions of law, if so advised. i \ i x ‘ 1 ¥ I r i Sdl- Sadsh K. Agnihoui _ g “r‘xn Judge ; l