Apurv Kumar
Article 226 of the constitution of India states that High court is not precluded from entertaining a writ petition even if there are disputed questions of facts but this is applicable only if the judges or high court do not need intricate evidence to the illustrated.
The court is considered to be as the custodian and protector of the fundamental rights and it may be failing its duty of being so which may, prima facie, turn up to be breached.
Against a Bombay High court judgment, the bench of CJI S.A. Bobde, Justices Surya Kant and BR Gavai was acknowledged an appeal which downturned to entertain writ petition of the basis that it convoluted question of facts. However, this absolute power can be over ruled only in unprecedented incident by the high courts.
The high court is not precluded from entertaining a writ petitions even if there are disputed question but the use of the exceptional power is limited as if it is not so, the enormous number of writs will become a burden on the court becoming very strenuous for the courts to deal with. If the petitioner does not provide the court the proper petition and affidavits in support and are not convincing enough then the court may dissolve the petitioner on the basis that the ones laid on the petitioner has not been properly discharged.
In some fitting cases, the court may be prone to give liberty to establish their case by issuing a commission by fitting further affidavit or by settling the application down for trial on proof or by using some different fitting methods. When the question of enforcement of fundamental right which merely require an investigation and into disputed facts and material, question of fact has been involved.
The high court can exercise this power if there are no other available remedies and if the high court thinks that there is no violation of Article 14 of the Indian constitution by the action of the state or its instrumentality is unreasonable and arbitrary. If in any case there is any sort of violation of any fundamental right then the petition will be looked into irrespective of any kind of disputed question of facts. The high court may in certain appropriate cases refuse to enter upon the investigation and may accredit the party which claimed relief in a certain suit. If there is an investigation into intricate question of facts arises in a petition under Article 226 of the constitution, before the right of an aggrieved party to access relief claimed may be arbitrated. Improper or inappropriate writ cannot be a ground for the refusal to allotment of appropriate relief. This law has been made to give quick and immediate remedies to the person who is or his property been unlawfully detained and does not able to provide proper proof or who is not able to provide proper facts to the court. This law protects the fundamental right of the people whose writ petition have questionable facts but this law is not a fundamental right because the court may refuse to entertain such petitions in certain cases. This law can be exercised by the court only in certain exceptional cases where quick remedy is needed and where there is no alternative for the remedy.
The high court may in certain appropriate cases refuse to in infiltrate to an enquiry and may refuse the party or petitioner claiming relief to a suit if there is an enquiry into intricate questions of facts emerge in a petition under Article 226 of the Indian constitution, in front of the right of an aggrieved petitioner or party to get the claimed relief. In such questionable cases the court has to look closely that whether the petitioner or party moving for relief is available with any evaluate remedy which should be equitably effectual by a suit, or whether denying to claim is laid considerably upon consideration of testimony oral and documentary of a complex nature and whether the case is otherwise appropriate for trial in exercise of the jurisdiction to issue such high prerogative writs.
The court cannot refuse to accept a writ or throw out a writ merely on the basis that the case has a dispute on question of facts, but at the same time, the court is not powerless to give order for an enquiry into the question facts where such investigation can be done and solved flooring of documents and affidavit filed in the court. Specially, in the cases like there is a violation of fundamental rights the court should normally resolve the case even having disputed question of facts unless the disputed questions are very complicated.
Hence, where the disputed question can easily be proved like certified copies of inconvertible documents, or like filing of original documents, relief will be allowed in such case and proceedings, even having disputed question of facts.
Lawcutor 