Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, G. Sudarsanam, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the communication dated 06.01.2012 issued by the first respondent, the District Collector, Vellore District. The communication demanded payment of Rs.7,380/- towards interest dues and 1% FBF amounting to Rs.1,335/- for cancellation of mortgage and release of documents. The petitioner contended that as per a letter issued by the second respondent, the Superintendent of Police, there were no dues payable to the first respondent. The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner was liable to pay the demanded amounts and that the issue involved disputed questions of fact which could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings. The court, after hearing both sides, observed that the letter from the second respondent could not bind the first respondent. Since the first respondent raised a specific demand disputing the claim of 'no dues', a disputed question of fact arose. The court held that such disputed questions cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 and the appropriate remedy lies before a competent Civil Court. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Disputed Questions of Fact - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner challenged a communication from the District Collector demanding payment of interest and FBF for cancellation of mortgage and release of documents. The court held that when the respondent raised a specific demand disputing the claim of 'no dues', it gives rise to a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. The appropriate remedy is to approach the competent Civil Court. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition challenging a demand for interest and FBF for cancellation of mortgage and release of documents can be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when there are disputed questions of fact
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Law Points
- Disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Appropriate remedy lies before competent Civil Court
Case Details
For Petitioner: Mr.S.Pushpakaran, For Respondents: Mr.U.M.Ravichandran, Special Government Pleader
1. The District Collector, Vellore District, 2. The Superintendent of Police, Vellore District
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of a communication demanding payment of interest and FBF for cancellation of mortgage and release of documents.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the first respondent's communication dated 06.01.2012 and direct the first respondent to execute cancellation of mortgage deed and return all property documents.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was informed by the first respondent to pay Rs.7,380/- towards interest dues and 1% FBF Rs.1,335/- for cancellation of mortgage and release of documents, which the petitioner contended was not payable as per a letter from the second respondent.
Issues
Whether the writ petition challenging a demand for interest and FBF for cancellation of mortgage and release of documents can be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when there are disputed questions of fact
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that as per the letter issued by the second respondent, there are no dues payable to the first respondent, hence the impugned communication should be quashed and documents returned.
Respondents argued that the petitioner is liable to pay the demanded amounts and that the issue involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings and require a trial-oriented forum.
Ratio Decidendi
Disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; the appropriate remedy is to approach the competent Civil Court.
Judgment Excerpts
When the first respondent has raised a specific demand disputing the claim of 'no dues' and has sought payment of Rs.7,380/- towards interest dues and 1% FBF amounting to Rs.1,335/- for cancellation of mortgage and release of documents, the same gives rise to a disputed question of fact.
Such disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed in 2015 challenging a communication dated 06.01.2012. After hearing both sides, the court dismissed the petition on 23.01.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
