Coras tfrit (C) No. 23SS sgati tngineerlng Partnership Firm duly reglstered under the Indian Partnershi Act,1832, having office at 72, industriai Estate, Bhiiai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 2. 3. Steei Authority of India Limited, a Company reglstered Under the Indian Companies Act, havina office at Lodhi Road, New Delhi and functloning at Bhiiai in Tahsil and District Durg, in the name and style of "Stee! Au'ihoritv of tndia Limited, Bhllai Steei Plant, Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh)". . General Manager (iVlM-Tech), Steel Authority of India Limited, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhliai District >urg (Chhattisgarh). Manager (Purchase), Stes! Authority of India Limlted, Bhilai Steel Piant, Bhilai District Durc (Chhattisgarh). ition under Articie 226 of Constitution of Indi; Present: Shrl H.B. Agrawa!, iearned Senior Advocate Shri Pankaj Agrawai, learnsd counsel for the petitioner. ith ...i:. :l.:.,j i .. The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Learned counsel forthe petitioner is heard on admission. ititioner - Pragati Engineering Vtforks, a Partnership Firm has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: "10(i)The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition by setting aside Annexure P-20 and P-21, hotding them to be iliegal and bad and against the object of The Industries (Development and Regulations) Act 1951 and aiso against Article 21 of Constitution of India, which denies right to livelihood to the petitioner by such illegal actlon of respondsnts. (ii) Cost of the petitlon be awarded and (ili) Any other relief or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deems fit, be also awarded." 3. The petitioner, thus in substance is seeking quashing of Annexures P-20 and P-21, whereby the respondents whiie }ranting extenslon of dellvery period for supply of 'T-Pipe' refused to grant extension of delivery period for the supply of 4. A bare perusal of the averments in the writ petition reveals that the petitioner's entire claim in the writ petition is based on the disputed questions of facts, which cannot be gone Rito in ths writ proceedings under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India as the parties would be required to lead evidence in support of their rival claims. ff , therefore, decline to entertain t'ne writ petltion in exereise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India vi/ith She liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedies which may beavailable to the petitioner under the relevant provlslons of taw, before the appropriate Civi! Court. 6. With the above liberty, the vi/rit petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge subbu