Writ Courts cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact involving financial calculations and maintenance expenditures.

The Appellant, a Resident Welfare Association (RWA), filed a Writ Petition seeking directions for the transfer of maintenance functions and the operation of the "DUSIB Estate Management Fund" to the Society, along with an audit of maintenance accounts.

The Respondent (DUSIB) filed a counter-affidavit claiming that while ₹2,55,00,000/- was collected from flat owners over five years, it had expended ₹3,60,00,000/- on civil and electrical/horticulture works.

The learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition on February 9, 2026, holding that disputed calculations and accounting grievances could not be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction.

The Appellant challenged this order via an intra-court appeal, alleging discrepancies between DUSIB’s expenditure claims and information obtained through the Right to Information Act, 2005.

1. Whether a Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can adjudicate disputed questions of fact regarding financial expenditures and accounting

2. Whether the Appellant is entitled to the transfer of maintenance functions and grant-in-aid pursuant to the Delhi Slum and Jhuggi Jhopri Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015

The Court primarily applied the principle that disputed questions of fact cannot be entertained by a Writ Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It further relied on the Delhi Slum and Jhuggi Jhopri Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 (Notification dated December 11, 2017), specifically Clause 5(viii) and (ix), which provides for the transfer of maintenance to registered Resident Welfare Associations after five years and the potential release of grant-in-aid.

The Court affirmed the Single Judge's view that the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, is not the appropriate forum to conduct a "calculation exercise" or resolve factual disputes regarding the veracity of DUSIB’s expenditures.

Regarding the transfer of maintenance, the Court examined the 2015 Policy, noting that Clause 5(ix) allows DUSIB to provide grant-in-aid to registered societies for maintenance works.

The Court reasoned that rather than adjudicating the merits of the financial dispute, the appropriate remedy was to allow the Appellant to represent its grievances—including the disputed horticulture expenses—directly to the competent authority under the framework of the existing Policy.

The Court emphasized that such administrative decisions must be made strictly in accordance with the law and the specific provisions of the 2015 Policy.

It granted the Appellant liberty to submit a formal representation to DUSIB regarding the transfer of maintenance, the release of grant-in-aid under Clause 5(ix) of the Policy, and objections to the alleged expenditures.

The Court directed DUSIB to decide on the representation within eight weeks and ordered that if the Appellant is found eligible, the grant-in-aid must be released in accordance with the Policy.