Disputed questions of fact regarding the genuineness of educational institutions must be resolved via civil suit.

The petitioner, acting as the Secretary of Madrasa Mohammadia Salafia, Barahia Tola, filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that his institution holds the valid and genuine Madrasa Code (No. 2371)

He further sought to declare another Madrasa located in Basahia Tola (Respondent No. 11), which uses the same code but a different address, as fake and illegal

The petitioner also prayed for a direction to the State to grant government aid to his institution based on the established genuineness of the Madrasa

The dispute essentially centers on a conflict between two rival managing committees/institutions claiming the same official recognition

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the appropriate remedy for resolving a dispute involving rival claims of genuineness and validity between two private institutions.

2. Whether the High Court can adjudicate upon seriously disputed questions of fact that require the evaluation of oral and documentary evidence.

The Court relied on the principle that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to resolve "seriously disputed questions of fact" or "rival claims" that necessitate investigation through evidence

Visakhapatnam Port Trust v. Ram Bahadur Thakur Pvt. Limited (1997) 4 SCC 582, D.D.A. v. Lila D. Bhagat AIR 1975 SC 495, Arya Sabha v. Commr. HRE (1976) 1 SCC 292, and State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 216

Division Bench of the Patna High Court in LPA No. 1017 of 2016, which held that right and title disputes between Madrasas must be relegated to a civil suit

The Court observed that the relief sought—determining which of the two Madrasas is "genuine" and which is "fake"—cannot be decided based on affidavits alone

Justice Harish Kumar reasoned that because the dispute pertains to the validity and genuineness of two competing entities, it inherently involves complex questions of fact

Applying the cited Supreme Court and Division Bench precedents, the Court determined that such matters must be resolved through a properly instituted civil suit where parties can lead oral and documentary evidence to prove their claims

The Court concluded that it would be inappropriate to enter into the merits of the case under its writ jurisdiction when the issue requires a full-scale trial

It held that the petitioner's claims involved disputed questions of fact that are outside the scope of Article 226

The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate civil court or forum for the resolution of the dispute through a suit or other legal means