Writ jurisdiction is inappropriate for disputed facts where an efficacious statutory appeal is available.

The petitioner filed an application under Section 5(3) of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001, concerning certain properties at Belilious Road, Howrah.

As the application remained pending, he approached the High Court in WPA 12970 of 2023.

On 6 September 2023, the Court directed the Thika Controller to number and dispose of the application expeditiously, after hearing all concerned.

The application was thereafter registered as Case No. 02/B/2023.

Several hearings were adjourned at the petitioner’s instance for production of documents, including a registered lease deed dated 25 June 1973.

On 17 May 2024, the Deputy Controller granted a final opportunity and fixed the matter for 19 July 2024.

On that date, the petitioner was neither present nor represented, and the Deputy Controller dismissed the application, holding that the property was thika-tenanted land and that the petitioner had failed to produce documentary or corroborative evidence supporting his claim.

The petitioner contended that the matter had been adjourned to 24 July 2024 and relied upon his advocate’s diary and subsequent representations to the Bar Association and District Magistrate.

He claimed to have discovered the dismissal only in July 2025 and thereafter challenged the order dated 19 July 2024 by the present writ petition.

The respondents disputed the alleged adjournment, contended that the hearing had concluded on 19 July 2024, and argued that the petitioner had an appellate remedy under Section 12 of the Thika Act.

Whether the writ petition could be entertained where the petitioner’s challenge involved disputed questions of fact regarding the hearing and dismissal of his application on 19 July 2024.

Whether the impugned order suffered from illegality or impropriety in its decision-making process warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory appellate remedy under Section 12 of the Thika Act instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.

Whether the petitioner could be granted liberty to pursue another remedy, including an appeal, with possible reliance on Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The Court considered Section 5(3) of the West Bengal Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001, under which the petitioner’s substantive application had been filed.

Section 12 of the Thika Act provides a statutory appellate remedy against the impugned order, and the existence of that remedy was treated as a material reason against entertaining the writ petition.

The Court applied the settled principle that a writ court generally does not adjudicate disputed questions of fact and is ordinarily concerned with the legality of the decision-making process rather than reassessing the merits of the administrative decision.

The Court also left it open to the petitioner to invoke Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if legally permissible, for exclusion of time spent bona fide pursuing the writ remedy.

The Court found that the parties’ competing accounts of what occurred on 19 and 24 July 2024 raised disputed factual questions that could not appropriately be resolved in writ proceedings.

The official order sheet recorded that Case No. 02/B/2023 was dismissed on 19 July 2024 and contained no entry showing that the matter was listed or heard on 24 July 2024.

The impugned order also provided reasons for rejection, namely, the petitioner’s failure to produce the relevant lease deed or other corroborative evidence, and the finding that the property constituted thika-tenanted land.

The Court therefore found no demonstrated illegality or impropriety in the decision-making process.

The petitioner’s unexplained delay of more than one year in approaching the Court, his failure to enquire about the progress of the case, and his failure to allege non-compliance with the earlier order dated 6 September 2023 further weakened his challenge.

In addition, the petitioner had not availed himself of the statutory appeal under Section 12 of the Thika Act.

The petitioner was nevertheless granted liberty to pursue any other remedy available in law, including an appeal, and was permitted to seek the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if applicable.

The observations in the judgment were not to prejudice any such subsequent proceeding.

There was no order as to costs.