Disputed question of fact

Petitioner was aggrieved of multiple acts done by different authorities and sought action against such authorities, against whom he had already initiated proceedings before other forums

Held, that contents of petition were based on jumbled and incoherent facts narrated in a confused manner, vague in details raising multifarious and indefinite grounds and allegations requiring roving inquiry in the affairs of various departments for fishing out some kind of a case with prayer, which itself was also multidimensional

Petitioner also had availed remedies before certain other forums, result of which was not disclosed

High Court declined to comment upon merits of the case, lest it might prejudice any other remedy available to petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Disputed questions of fact could not be gone into proceedings under Art. 199 of the Constitution.

Multiple reliefs sought by appellant in his constitutional petition itself showed that certain disputed questions of facts were involved in the matter

High Court under its jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution could not resolve such questions and appellant could adopt appropriate forum/alternate remedy for the determination of the same

Single Judge of High Court had rightly dismissed petition of appellant on such grounds

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in order passed by the Single Judge of High Court as same was neither illegal nor perverse and was passed in consonance with spirit of law

Intra-court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner (employee) assailed resolution passed by Board of Directors of employer company cancelling petitioner's posting/ deputation as Company Secretary/ General Manager on ground of damaging reputation of the company

High Court declined to determine veracity of assertions made by petitioner as disputed questions of facts were involved and same could not be adjudicated by High Court while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction

Petitioner had no vested right to claim particular post at particular place because requisition of services of government employee on deputation was prerogative of the competent authority

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioners were elected Chairman and Vice-Chairman of District Council but their election was declared void by Election Commission

Validity

Controversy raised in the petition by respondents before Election Commission, was such which could not have been resolved without recording of evidence

Election Commission had no jurisdiction / power to enter in any detailed inquiry and to record evidence, where there were disputed questions of facts

Nature of power which Election Commission had under R. 78 of Punjab Local Government (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013, was executive in nature and was granted by legislature to ensure that elections were conducted in just, fair and free manner in accordance with provision of Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 and Punjab Local Government (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013

Legislature had given power to adjudicate election disputes to Election Tribunal only

Such intention of the Legislature was stated in S.38 of Punjab Local Government Act, 2013, and provided that election to the office of Local Government could only be called in question by an election petition

Election Commission, in elections held under Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 and Punjab Local Government (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013, had no adjudication power even of summary nature in-as-much as no provision similar to S.103AA of Representation of People Act, 1976, existed in either of the two enactments

High Court set aside the order passed by Election Commission whereby election of petitioners was declared void

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Nomination papers filed by petitioner were rejected by the Authority on grounds that he was carrying business of real estate

Validity

Petitioner acknowledged that he had been running business of real estate two years ago

Such factual aspect was already adjudicated upon by Election Commission as well as appellate forum

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings as contention of petitioner was based upon disputed questions of fact and same had already been resolved by forums below

Petitioner could not discharge his onus by simply placing affidavit as status of affidavit had no value unless its facts and deponent had gone through test of cross-examination before any Authority

High Court declined to interfere in orders passed by two forums below

Constitutional Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Constitutional petition before the Supreme Court seeking disqualification of Prime Minister for acquiring wealth and assets through corrupt and illegal practices and misuse of authority and indulging in money laundering

Contentions of petitioners that the Prime Minister's daughter being a dependent of Prime Minister was the beneficial owner of the subject properties situated abroad; that the Prime Minister was bound to disclose his daughter's assets and liabilities in his nomination form in terms of S.12(2)(f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and that when he failed to do so, he was liable to be disqualified from being member of Parliament

Validity

Contention raised by the petitioners on the face of it was a disputed question of fact, and in the absence of undisputed evidence it could not be decided by the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art.184(3) of the Constitution.

Petitioner sought direction to authorities to investigate into the affairs of official and private respondents and if they would found involved in commission of any offence with regard to land in question, then reference was to submit in the Court

Validity

Disputed questions of facts were agitated and it was yet to be determined by competent forum/Court, having jurisdiction in such like cases, as to whether fraud or forgery as alleged was committed by official respondents with the collusion of private respondents in respect of land in question or not

Any aggrieved person while invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution was required to establish a clear legal right, which should be beyond any doubt

Controversy should not contain disputed facts nor should require recording of evidence and determination of title or any right in immovable property which could come within the domain of civil Court or the forum provided for such purpose

In the light of alleged forgery and fraud legal right and entitlement of petitioner had become controversial

Disputed questions of facts as raised by petitioner could not be decided in Constitutional jurisdiction

Aggrieved person had to resort to statutory remedy as provided under relevant statute instead of directly approaching High Court by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction in terms of Art. 199 of the Constitution in a routine manner

Such remedy was discretionary in nature and was to be exercised with caution sparingly, only in extreme circumstances in order to secure the ends of justice, when there was no other alternate remedy or forum available for such purpose

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Respondent in a Constitutional petition cannot expect to have petition dismissed by making vague and general assertion to the effect that petitioner involves disputed questions of fact

For a respondent to succeed on such score, he must identify disputed questions which cannot be resolved without recording of evidence.

High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction could not go into question involving minute details nor could it decide facts of which either no foundation was laid or otherwise involved disputed question of fact which necessitated taking of evidence

Questions raised by petitioner could not be resolved without entering into process of inquiry which rendered constitutional petition incompetent

Petitioner failed to point out that notice in question was illegal, without lawful authority and coram non judice

High Court directed Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue to decide notice in question strictly in accordance with law after granting opportunity of hearing to petitioner and other concerned

Petition was dismissed accordingly.

Such question cannot be resolved while exercising powers and jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution.

Controversy of disputed questions of facts, adjudication of which is possible only after obtaining all types of evidence having by parties, can be determined only by forums concerned and in such like cases, constitutional petition would not be competent

Such extraordinary jurisdiction is intended primarily for providing expeditious remedy in a case where legality of action assailed of executive or other authority can be established without any elaborate inquiry into complicated or disputed facts.

Such jurisdiction is primarily meant to provide expeditious and efficacious remedy where illegality, impropriety and flagrant violation of law regarding impugned action of Authority is apparent on the face of record and can be established without any comprehensive inquiry into complicated, ticklish, controversial and disputed facts

Controversial questions of fact cannot be decided in exercise of powers under Art.199 of the Constitution

Disputed and controversial questions of fact can only be determined by competent forums after recording of evidence

Constitutional petition in such like situation is not competent, however, subject to certain exceptions.