CWP No.1184 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.1184 of 2010 Date of decision: January 25, 2010 Sarwan Sarangal and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Ms. Manjuli Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondents No.1 and 2 to remove illegal encroachments made by respondent No.3 on a public street. The grievance of the petitioner is that they own a shop in the urban area of Basti Nau, Jalandhar. Adjacent to the shop is the factory of respondents No.3 and 4. The petitioners allege that respondents No.3 and 4 had encroached upon a part of the public street and thus it is duty of the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar to take action against respondents No.3 and 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Municipal Corporation has failed to perform its statutory duty and thus, a writ in the nature of mandamus is required to be issued by this court to compel the corporation to take action against the private respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and given CWP No.1184 of 2010 2 careful thought to the facts of the case. Admittedly, the petitioners have already filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against respondent No.3, wherein a prayer has been made to restrain the defendant, his agents, nominees etc. from raising any construction in the street in question. The civil suit is still pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar. It is evident that it is a private dispute between the petitioners and respondents No.3 and 4, respondent No.4 being son of respondent No.3. During the pendency of the civil suit, it is inexplicable how the present writ petition is maintainable purportedly to compel the corporation to perform its statutory duty. There can be no doubt that the petitioners are only agitating an issue of personal interest. Regarding the same, a civil suit is already pending before the competent court. Disputed questions of fact are involved in the same. It is not possible for this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction to decide disputed questions of fact. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE January 25, 2010 'rajpal'