Navigating the Labyrinth: Maintainability of Writ Petitions Involving Disputed Questions of Fact in India

Introduction

The extraordinary writ jurisdiction vested in the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India serves as a cornerstone of judicial review, empowering these courts to issue directions, orders, or writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for "any other purpose." However, the invocation and exercise of this plenary power are guided by certain self-imposed limitations. A significant area of judicial consideration pertains to the maintainability of writ petitions when they involve disputed questions of fact. Traditionally, writ courts have been reluctant to delve into factual controversies, preferring to relegate parties to ordinary civil remedies where evidence can be elaborately adduced and tested. This article analyses the legal principles governing the maintainability of writ petitions in the face of disputed questions of fact, tracing the evolution of judicial thought and examining the factors that guide the High Courts in exercising their discretion. It draws upon key pronouncements of the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts to delineate the current jurisprudential landscape.

The General Rule: Aversion to Adjudicating Disputed Facts in Writ Jurisdiction

The traditional stance of the judiciary has been that writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for the adjudication of disputed questions of fact. This reluctance stems from the summary nature of writ proceedings, which are generally decided on the basis of affidavits and are not designed for elaborate trial-like procedures involving the examination and cross-examination of witnesses. The Supreme Court in State Of Bihar And Others v. Jain Plastics And Chemicals Ltd. (2002 SCC 1 216, Supreme Court Of India, 2001) observed that "seriously disputed questions or rival claims of the parties with regard to breach of contract are to be investigated and determined on the basis of evidence which may be led by the parties in a properly instituted civil suit rather than by a court exercising prerogative of issuing writs."

Similarly, in Union Of India v. T.R Varma (1957 AIR SCC 882, Supreme Court Of India, 1957), it was held that if a question on which there is a serious dispute cannot be satisfactorily decided without taking evidence, it should not be decided in a writ proceeding. This principle was echoed by the Patna High Court in Amina Khatoon And Others Petitioner/S v. State Of Bihar And Others /S. (Patna High Court, 2020), citing the Constitution Bench decision in Shri Sohan Lal v. Union of India (AIR 1957 SC 529), that questions of fact and law in dispute requiring determination are more appropriate for a civil court. The rationale is that the writ court's primary role is to ensure the legality of administrative action and protect fundamental rights, not to function as a trial court for factual disputes.

The Paradigm Shift: Smt. Gunwant Kaur and the "No Absolute Bar" Principle

A significant development in this area of law was the Supreme Court's decision in Smt. Gunwant Kaur And Others v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda And Others (1969 SCC 3 769, Supreme Court Of India, 1969). This landmark judgment clarified that a High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner's right to relief, questions of fact may fall to be determined. The Court held that "In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles." It cautioned against dismissing petitions in limine solely on this ground before affidavits are filed and the nature of the dispute is clear.

This "no absolute bar" principle was robustly affirmed and expanded in Abl International Ltd. And Another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation Of India Ltd. And Others (2004 SCC 3 553, Supreme Court Of India, 2003). The Supreme Court, relying on Gunwant Kaur, held that a writ petition is maintainable even if it involves some disputed questions of fact, particularly when the actions of a State or its instrumentality are challenged on grounds of arbitrariness or unfairness under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court stated, "merely because one of the parties to the litigation raises a dispute in regard to the facts of the case, the court entertaining such petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not always bound to relegate the parties to a suit." This view has been consistently reiterated in numerous subsequent judgments, including Noble Resources Ltd. v. State Of Orissa And Another (Supreme Court Of India, 2006), State Of Kerala And Others v. M.K. Jose (2015 SCC 9 433, Supreme Court Of India, 2015), and Estra Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., v. The Regional Manager, (Madras High Court, 2023). The Supreme Court in Cpl Ashish Kumar Chauhan (retd.) (s) v. Commanding Officer And Others (s). (Supreme Court Of India, 2023) further emphasized that the "so-called 'hands off' bogey of 'disputed questions of fact'...are to be seen in the context of the facts of each case," and that the approach is dictated by convenience rather than a rigid rule.

Nature and Emergence of Disputed Questions of Fact

A disputed question of fact typically arises when a petitioner presents a factual case that is controverted by the respondents (Air India Ltd. And Others v. Vishal Capoor And Others, Supreme Court Of India, 2005). As observed by the Calcutta High Court in Bhagaban Dey v. Union Of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court, 2009), the "real nature of the disputed questions of fact involved in a writ petition can be ascertained only after the parties exchange their affidavits." Therefore, a premature dismissal at the admission stage solely on the apprehension of disputed facts may not always be appropriate, as the court needs to assess the nature and complexity of the dispute after pleadings are complete.

Guiding Principles for Exercise of Discretion

While there is no absolute bar, the High Court's power to entertain writ petitions involving disputed facts is discretionary. This discretion is to be exercised judiciously, considering several factors:

Complexity of Factual Matrix and Need for Evidence

A primary consideration is the nature and complexity of the factual dispute. If the questions of fact are intricate, requiring voluminous evidence, examination, and cross-examination of witnesses for their determination, the High Court will generally be reluctant to undertake such an inquiry in writ proceedings. This is because writ courts are not equipped for such elaborate evidence-taking processes. (State Of Bihar And Others v. Jain Plastics And Chemicals Ltd., 2002 SCC 1 216; Union Of India v. T.R Varma, 1957 AIR SCC 882; Noble Resources Ltd. v. State Of Orissa And Another, 2006). The Supreme Court in Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union Of India And Others (2015 SCC 7 728, Supreme Court Of India, 2015), and reiterated in Union Of India And Others (S) v. Puna Hinda (S). (2021 INSC 448, Supreme Court Of India, 2021) and Gujarat Maritime Board v. Larsen And Toubro Infrastructure Development Projects Limited And Another (2016 SCC ONLINE SC 1005, Supreme Court Of India, 2016), indicated that courts "normally" would not exercise discretion if there are "very serious disputed questions of fact which are of complex nature and require oral evidence for their determination." Similar observations were made by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in cases like JAI DUTT SHARMA AND ORS v. STATE OF HP AND ORS (Himachal Pradesh High Court, 2023), citing Punjab National Bank and others Versus Atmanand Singh and others, (2020) 6 Supreme Court Cases 256.

Availability of Alternative Efficacious Remedy

The existence of an alternative efficacious remedy, such as a civil suit or arbitration, is a significant factor. Generally, High Courts refrain from exercising writ jurisdiction if an adequate alternative remedy is available where disputed facts can be properly adjudicated (Union Of India v. T.R Varma, 1957 AIR SCC 882). The Supreme Court in Joshi Technologies (2015) and Puna Hinda (2021) noted that if a particular mode of settlement (like arbitration) is provided in a contract, the High Court would normally refuse to exercise discretion. However, the rule of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not of compulsion. Exceptions are carved out, for instance, where the impugned action is without jurisdiction, violates principles of natural justice, or infringes fundamental rights (Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai And Others, 1998 SCC 8 1, Supreme Court Of India, 1998). The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Padamara Vipparu (West Vipparru) Gram Panchayath, Rep. By Its Sarpanch, Dokala Nageswara Rao v. State Of... (Andhra Pradesh High Court, 2017), citing a larger bench, held that mere availability of an alternative remedy is not a ground to non-suit a writ petition.

Presence of Public Law Element and Allegations of Arbitrariness

In cases involving State action, particularly in contractual matters, the presence of a "public law element" is crucial. If the State or its instrumentality is alleged to have acted arbitrarily, unfairly, unreasonably, or in a manner violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, High Courts are more inclined to intervene, even if some factual disputes exist (Abl International Ltd., 2004; Noble Resources Ltd., 2006). The Supreme Court in State Of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh And Others (2020 SCC ONLINE SC 847, Supreme Court Of India, 2020), referencing Joshi Technologies (2015), emphasized that the court may not examine the issue unless the action has some public law character attached to it. This principle allows judicial scrutiny of State actions to ensure they conform to constitutional mandates of fairness and non-discrimination.

Considerations in Contractual Matters

While a writ is generally not the remedy for enforcing purely contractual obligations (State Of Bihar And Others v. Jain Plastics And Chemicals Ltd., 2002; State Of Kerala And Others v. M.K. Jose, 2015), this rule is not absolute, especially when one party is the State or its instrumentality. As established in Abl International Ltd. (2004), writ petitions concerning contractual disputes with the State can be maintainable if issues of public law, arbitrariness, or violation of Article 14 are involved. The Supreme Court in Century Spinning And Manufacturing Company Ltd. And Another v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council And Another (1970 SCC 1 582, Supreme Court Of India, 1970) also entertained a writ petition where a public body sought to resile from its representations, involving factual questions of reliance. However, if the dispute is purely contractual and involves complex factual issues requiring evidence, relegation to a civil suit remains the norm (Joshi Technologies, 2015; Puna Hinda, 2021).

Monetary Claims

The Supreme Court in Joshi Technologies (2015) and Puna Hinda (2021) also stated that "Money claims per se particularly arising out of contractual obligations are normally not to be entertained except in exceptional circumstances." While Abl International Ltd. (2004) did grant monetary relief, it was in a context where the facts were considered largely undisputed by the Supreme Court and the State's action was found arbitrary.

The Judicial Approach: A Balancing Act

The jurisprudence on the maintainability of writ petitions involving disputed questions of fact reveals a delicate balancing act by the courts. There is a clear recognition that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is an extraordinary remedy, plenary in nature (State Of Kerala And Others v. M.K. Jose, 2015, citing Whirlpool Corporation, 1998 and Abl International Ltd., 2004). The decision to entertain or dismiss a writ petition involving factual disputes is ultimately discretionary and must be exercised based on sound judicial principles, tailored to the specific facts and circumstances of each case (Smt. Gunwant Kaur, 1969; M/S. S.K.SWAMY AND COMPANY, BANGALORE v. CAO, SRC, SEC-BAD. AND 2 ORS., Telangana High Court, 2024). The High Court, as observed in City And Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala And Others (2009 SCC 1 168, Supreme Court Of India, 2008), must diligently evaluate the merits, considering factors like delay, laches, and the nature of evidence required.

The courts lean against converting writ proceedings into a full-fledged trial. However, where the facts are not overwhelmingly complex, or where a public law element is strongly present, or where the alternative remedy is not genuinely efficacious, the High Courts have shown willingness to intervene to prevent injustice. The key is whether the factual dispute is such that it cannot be satisfactorily resolved without extensive oral evidence and cross-examination, thereby making the writ forum inappropriate.

Conclusion

The question of maintainability of writ petitions involving disputed questions of fact in India is nuanced, governed by a blend of established principles and judicial discretion. The initial reluctance to entertain such petitions has evolved into a more flexible approach, spearheaded by landmark decisions like Smt. Gunwant Kaur and Abl International Ltd. While there is no absolute bar, High Courts act with caution, guided by the complexity of the facts, the need for elaborate evidence, the availability of alternative remedies, and the presence of a public law element, particularly allegations of arbitrariness against the State. The overarching aim is to ensure that the powerful writ jurisdiction remains an effective tool for upholding the rule of law and delivering justice, without transforming High Courts into arenas for protracted factual investigations better suited to civil courts. Each case, therefore, necessitates a careful and considered application of these principles to its unique factual matrix.