HIGH CQURT OF JUDiCATURE AT BILASPUR : CHHATTISGAai SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHR1 S.R. NAYAK, C.J. IT PETITI Versus 2. 4. 6. 7. 8. Maa Sakambari Construction, through - 'rts Proprietor Sampat Kumar Saraf, son ofShri Kishori Lal Saraf, aaed about 39 vears, resident of Deogarh road, Dhanupali, P.0. and P.S. Dhanupaii, District Sambaipur State of Chhattisgarh, through - its Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rurai Deveiopment, Dau Kalyan Slngh Bhav/an, Mantralay, Raipur (C.G.). The DeveioDment Commissioner, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development E)epartment, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Chief Engineer, Pradhan Mantri Gramya Sadak Yojana (P.M.G.S.Y.) Office of the Development Commissioner, Civil Lines, Raipur Chhatt.'sgarh. Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Sewices, Raipur Circte, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Coliector, Dlstt. Mahasamund (Chhattisaarh). Executh/e Engjneer, Rura! Engineering Sen/ices, Office of the Development Commissioner, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Ramesh Kumar Agrawal, agsd about 40 years, son of Shri Debendra Lal Agrawai, resident of Dalaipara, P.0. and P.S. SambaSpur, Distt. Sambalpur (Orissa). Rajesh Kumar Agrawa!, aged about 38 years, son of Shri Debendra La! Agrawal, resldent of Dalaipara, P.0. and P.S. Sambalpur, Distt. Sambaipur (Orissa). 2. Present: Shri V.R. Tiwari, learned counse! for the petiiioner. Shri Vinay Harit, learned Dy. A.G. with Shri Utkarsh Verma, iearned Dy. G.A. for the State. ?-. (Passed on 16th.June, 2008) The dispute brought before the Court by way of this wrst petition relates to the qusstion whether Maa Sakambari Construction is a proprietorship concern of Sampat Kumar Saraf, S/o Kishori Lal Saraf or a firm of which the respondents 7 and 8 herein are the partners. According to the petitioner, Maa Sakambari Construction is a proprietorshlp concern of Sampat Kumar Saraf, but, respondents 7 and 8 have secured the Government works contracts claimina that Maa Sakambari Construction is a partnership firm of which they are the partners. The factual dispute brought before t'ne Court cannot be resoived in a summary proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to resoive the iis, it becomes imperative for the Court to permit the parties to !ead evidence and tender the parties to be cross-examlned by each other. !n a matter like this, mors effective and comprehensiv" remedy may be obtained by way of private !aw re\'iew remedies like declaration and injunction. Since Ehe petitioner has an effectlve and comprehensive alternatlve remedy before the jurisdictiona! Civi! Court, I decline to entertaln thls writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismlssed reserving iiberty to the pet'rtioner to workout She lega! remedies as indicated above. No costs. Chiet lustice ^,