Writ Petition Involving Disputed Questions of Fact Is Not Maintainable Where Efficacious Alternative Remedies Exist

The petitioners, a surgical hospital and its proprietor, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities for the payment of Rs. 57,21,175 due for medical facilities provided to the poor under a government scheme

They further sought the release of said amount as per an MOU dated 08.03.2016 along with 18% interest per annum

During the proceedings, both parties conceded that the subject matter involved disputed questions of fact and was identical to a previously adjudicated matter by a Division Bench of the same Court

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable for the recovery of dues under a contract/MOU when the matter involves disputed questions of fact?

2. Whether the petitioners should be relegated to alternative efficacious remedies in light of existing judicial precedents?

The Court applied the principle of judicial discipline and the doctrine of Res Integra, noting that identical legal issues had already been settled by the Division Bench in Dr. Nita Jha Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors (CWJC No. 455 of 2020)

The court relied on the principle that under Article 226 of the Constitution, High Courts generally refrain from adjudicating complex "disputed questions of fact," especially those arising out of contractual obligations, and instead permit parties to pursue "equally efficacious alternative remedies" available under the law

The Court observed that the counsel for both the petitioners and the State admitted that the issue was no longer res integra and was squarely covered by the judgment in Dr. Nita Jha

In that precedent, the Court had declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction because the claims required an adjudication of facts that could not be suitably performed in a summary writ proceeding

Following this reasoning, the Court in the present case determined that since the dispute stemmed from an MOU/agreement and involved quantification of dues, it fell within the realm of disputed facts

Consequently, rather than adjudicating the merits, the Court found it appropriate to allow the petitioners to approach the relevant civil or administrative forum as per the liberty granted in the cited precedent

The Court held that all questions of fact and law remain open for the petitioners to agitate before an appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings

All interlocutory applications were also disposed of accordingly