The State should act as a model litigant and should not put forth false, frivolous, or technical contentions to obstruct the path of justice. The High Court has the plenary power to entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact and has the discretion to entertain or not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The appellant has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 6.8.2018, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 8708 of 2017 thereby, declining to entertain the petition since the petition involves question of facts.

4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under:

The respondent-District Collector, Satara had issued a notice of public auction for auctioning the sand blocks of Krishna river in the year 2012. The appellant had submitted his bid for excavation of sand insofar as Gat No. 956A, Plot No. 2 at village Rethare Khurd, Taluka Karad. The agreed quantity of excavation was 8500 brass. The appellant’s bid being the highest i.e. Rs. 59,75,000/- he was awarded the tender.

On 3.1.2012, the appellant deposited Rs.15,00,000/- as one-fourth (1/4th) amount of auction with Government treasury. On 16.1.2012, the appellant deposited remaining auction amount of Rs. 44,83,500. The appellant also deposited Rs. 1,19,500/- towards environmental cost and Rs. 1,23,085/- towards income tax. As such, the total deposit made by the appellant was Rs. 62,26,085/- towards allotment of sand block.

However, since the said sand block was at a distance of about 100 ft. from the school, the villagers of Rethare Khurd village had opposed the excavation of sand. As such, though the appellant had deposited the entire amount, he was not put in possession of the said sand block. In the circumstances, the appellant made a representation to the Revenue Minister, Government of Maharashtra for refund of the auction amount. As the appellant’s representation was sent to the Collector, Satara to make enquiry, the Collector, Satara (respondent No. 2 herein) in turn, by letter dated 11.6.2012 sought a report from the Tehsildar, Karad.

On 15.6.2012, statement of the appellant came to be recorded by the Circle Officer, Kale (respondent No. 5 herein). He also prepared a Panchnama of the sand block in question which exhibited that possession of sand block was never given to the appellant and that there was no excavation of sand from the said sand block.

The Tehsildar, Karad respondent No. 4, submitted a detailed report dated 9.8.2012 to the Collector, Satara pointing out the factual position. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Karad-respondent No. 3, in turn, submitted a report on 4.9.2012 reiterating the factual position. It appears, that in the transit the file was lost and as such, though the appellant was not granted possession of the sand block and though yet he had not excavated any sand, the refund of the amount could not be made to him. It appears that there were further correspondences between the authorities and finally, the Desk Officer of the respondent No. 1-State Government vide order dated 25.3.2014 rejected the prayer of the appellant seeking refund of the auction amount.

The appellant again made several representations. Since there was no response, the appellant approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 8708 of 2017. As stated earlier, by the impugned order, the High Court refused to entertain the petition on the ground that it involves question of facts.

5. No doubt that, normally, when a petition involves disputed questions of fact and law, the High Court would be slow in entertaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is a rule of self-restraint and not a hard and fast rule. In any case, this Court in ABL International Ltd. and Another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 553, has observed thus:

“19. Therefore, it is clear from the above enunciation of law that merely because one of the parties to the litigation raises a dispute in regard to the facts of the case, the court entertaining such petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not always bound to relegate the parties to a suit. In the above case of Gu