Rakesh Pandey vs State of U.P. and others

Satya Poot Mehrotra and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.—The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

(i) issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents not to harass the petitioner by misutilizing the office of Pradhan.

(ii) issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to decide the representation of petitioner dated 19.1.2011 (Annexure Nos. 5 and 6 respectively to the writ petition).

(iii) issue writ order or direction as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iv) award the costs of the petition to the petitioner.

The grievance of the petitioner is that his Abadi is on plot No. 29, and Smt. Kaushliya Devi, wife of respondent No. 6, who has become Pradhan, is going to allot Plot No. 29 in the garb of allotting plot No. 19.

Having regard to the nature of controversy involved in the writ petition, we are of the view that the same involves determination of disputed questions of fact which will require leading of evidence, oral and documentary, and evidently, this cannot appropriately be done in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In view of the above, we are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed without going into the merits of the controversy involved therein.

It is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the petitioner in seeking appropriate relief before the appropriate forum.