IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2324 of 2001 (M/S) Himalyan Forwardng Agency Chham, Tehri Garhwal through its Partner Dev Chandra Pursoda S/o Sri Hari Singh Pursoda R/o Village- Sunargaon, Patti- Gussain, District Tehri Garhwal. ……Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others. … Respondents. Sri Pradeep Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Sri V.B.S. Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State-respondents. Date: - July 29, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard Sri Pradeep Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Sri V.B.S. Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State- respondents. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to make the payment to the petitioner and release the security money with interest at the earliest. According to the petitioner, the food grains were supplied in terms of the order/objection dated 17-4-1995 written by the respondent No.2. The petitioner-firm had supplied the food grains from 30-11-1995 to 22-6-1996 and submitted its bills for the 2 payment in the office of the respondent No.2 but the respondent No.2 did not pay the bills amounting to Rs. 1,78,652.19 to the petitioner and security money is also lying with the respondent No.2 amounting to Rs.46,000/-. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent and it has been stated in paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the Counter affidavit that: - “That the contents of the paragraph No.4 of the writ petition are not correct as stated therefore denied. The petitioner die not supply the food grain and sugar as per condition of the agreement bond and respondent No.2 after the enquiry found that the food grains and sugar was not supplied to the destiny as per condition of the agreement bond and under these circumstances it was not proper for the respondent No.2 to pay the transportation charges to the petitioner.” “That the contents of paragraph No.5 of the writ petition are not correct as stated therefore denied. The petitioner did not supply the food grains and sugar from Rishikesh to Ghonti and with the collision with the then food grain Inspector Jaipal Singh Negi and sold the food grain and sugar some where else and loss of rupees 25,52,929- 00(Twenty five lac fifty two thousand nine hundred twenty nine) was caused t the state and the administration.” By a perusal of the counter affidavit as well as the averments made in the writ petition, it reveals that the disputed fact involved in the writ petition is that whether the food grains were supplied by the petitioner to the respondent No.2 or not? 3 It is settled law that in writ jurisdiction, disputed question of facts cannot be decided. For redressal of his grievance, the petitioner may file civil suit or may avail any other alternative remedy available to him under the agreement. In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. All pending applications stands disposed of. . (B.S.Verma, J.) MK 29-07-2008 4