(3^-i^r/(^ Ssng1e®enc^ ^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAniSGARH AT BILASPUR CHHAniSGARH urf&)M^H((| W.P.fONo. /2011 1 PETITIONER ^i.\M^;--. ^'l"^^-"'" ^5P>'" ^v ^•••••'" RESPONDENTS Versys / 1. 2. ^ 3. Kishore Jaiswani S/o Shri Gopichand Jaiswani, aged about 44 years, R/o Risipara, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Department of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur (C.G.) Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA I. : ... - : ...^; l-i-^iaiEL^*..:- ^u\ ^ s7^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.4814 OF 2011 PETITIONER Kishore Jaiswani Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others RESPONDENTS (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J« Present:- Ms. Anju Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Adv. General for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 23rd day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to compensate the loss suffered by the petitioner due to 95 to 98% reduction in valuation of wood, further the wrong doers may be punished and the damages may be recovered from their service benefits. 3. Learned . counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased 20 logs of wood legally from the Department of Forest on the basis of auction. Thereafter, he obtained the transit pass and loaded the said wood in the vehicle for its transportation to Amritsar on 1-5-2007. However, on account of non-fulfitlment of illegal demand of the respondent authorities, the wood was seized on 1-5-2007 and the offence punishable under Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act has been registered against the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the authorities for release of the wood on furnishing the bank guarantee, but the same does not fructify. According to the petitioner, the said wood was kept in an open place, as a result of which the same was damaged. Ultimately, the said wood was released on 17-12-2008 •£'""'^\ //'^ I- ^;y ^^ (Annexure -- P/10) in a damaged condition. Thus, this petition for compensation. Be that as it may, the disputed question of facts cannot be decided on the basis of statements made by the parties. This requires proper enquiry in the matter, examination of evidence and witnesses. The Supreme Court in State of M.P. & Others v. M.V. Vyavsaya & Co ., in categorical terms, observed as under: "15. It has repeatedly held by this Court that the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not akin to appellate power. It is a supervisory power. While exercising this power, the Court does not go into the merits of the decision taken by the authorities concerned but only ensures that the decision is arrived at in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and in accordance with the principles of natural justice wherever applicable. Further, where there are disputed question of fact, the High Court does not normally go into or adjudicate upon the disputed questions offact... 17. Of course, where there is a statutory violation, interference would be permissible even in the case of a contract but not where the relevant facts are disputed and which dispute calls for an elaborate enquiry which cannot be conveniently done by the High Court in a writ petition." Further, in P.R.Murlidharan & Others v. Swami Dharmananda Teertha Padar& Others , the Supreme Court observed that: "12...A person could not approach the High Court for the purpose of determining such disputed questions of fact which were beyond the scope and purport of the jurisdiction of the High Court while exerdsing writ jurisdiction as it is also involved determination of disputed questions of fact... 1 (1997)1 SCC156 2 (2006) 4 SCC 501 ^ 7. 8. 13. Furthermore the jurisdiction of the civil court is wide and plenary in a case of this nature, a writ proceeding cannot be a substitute for a civil suit." In Nobel Resourees Ltd. v. State ofOrissa & Others3, while making the above position more clear, observed as under: "18. It may, however, be true that where serious disputed questions of fact are raised requiring appreciation of evidence, and, thus, for determination thereof, examination ofwitnesses would be necessary; it may not be convenient to decide the dispute in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." The Supreme Court, in Moran M.Baselios Marthoma Mathews II and Others v. State ofKerala & Others , observed as under: "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 atso the disputed questions in regard to the rights of a particutar group to manage the Churches, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, particularly when such questions are pending consideration before competent civil courts..'3 In Mohan Pandey & another v. Usha Rani Rajgaria (Smt) & Others , observed as under: t(6...1t has repeatedly been held by this Court as also by various High Courts that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property rights between private persons and that the • remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be avaitable except where viotation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged. And in such a case, the Court will issue appropriate direction to the authority concerned. If the real grievance of the respondent is against the initiation of criminal proceedings, 3 (2006) 10SCC236 4 (2007)68cc 517 (1992)48cc61 \K^ ..^:^ \'\ ^-,;- -/^. and the orders passed and steps taken thereon, she must avail of the remedy under the general law including the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general law, civil or criminal, are available. It is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant. The jurisdiction is special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly." 10. In N.T. Abraham v. State of Kerala & Others6, the Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeal, held as under: "3. The High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature which has to be agitated in an appropriate forum. Whether there has been a bona fide mistake or not in paying the excess amount to the appellant and whether, the appellant is entitled to retain the said amount of Rs. 1,59,939.75 or not, are alt matters which have to be decided under civil law and these disputes cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." Gowri 11. Applying the well-settled principle of law to the facts of the case, the disputed facts involved in this petition, cannot be decided by this Court. 12. As an upshot, the writ petition is shorn of merit and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. However, for payment of compensation, the petitioner is at tiberty to approach the competent jurisdictional civil Court, if so advised. _— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (1999)98cc280