WPMS 1298/2011 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri A. Maitri, Advocate with Sri Ramji Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ajay Singh Bisht, the learned counsel for respondent no. 1, Sri I.P. Kohli, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and Sri H.M. Raturi, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 4. It is alleged that the respondent Company illegally granted a licence in the name of respondent no. 3 as proprietor, whereas the licence ought to have been granted in the name of partnership firm. It seems that there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent no. 3, who are the brothers. Such dispute cannot be adjudicated in a writ jurisdiction. Since disputed facts are involved, the appropriate remedy is to file a civil suit. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 29-06-2011 SP