Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for directing the respondent- authorities to pay cost of paddy to the tune of Rs. 70,774/- on account of sale of 27.75 quintals at the Purchase Center of PACS as also at the Paddy Procurement Center of the Government of Bihar at Makhdumpur, Dist-Jehanabad on 31.03.2015.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that he had taken 64 jute bags containing paddy to the Makhdumpur Purchase Center of PACS, Government of Bihar on 31.03.2015 for selling the same. It is also alleged that out of 64 bags, Mansuri paddy (Dwarf) was packed in 55 bags containing 48 kg each and rest of the 09 bags were filled with Rupali and Komal weighing 38 kg each. It is the averment of the petitioner that the purchasing authority had directed that the farmers to bring paddy bags weighing 42.5 kg each at the Purchase Center so that the net quantity after deducting dust, moisture, empty jute bag totals upto 40 kg. It is also stated that the Purchase and Weight in-charge did not listen to the petitioner and averaged out the weight of the bags, resulting in the total weight being calculated @ 23.75 quintals each and the total sum was accordingly calculated to be a sum of Rs. 39,425/- i.e. @ Rs. 1600/- per quintal. It is the allegation of the petitioner that he was put to loss of 04 quintals, which totals up to a sum of Rs. 6,400/-.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the total amount to be paid to the petitioner totals up to a sum of Rs. 70,774/-, including the cost of empty jute bags, cost of tractor fare, cost of packaging, stitching, loading and unloading, cost of paddy, penal interest and litigation charges. It is thus submitted that despite the petitioner having contacted the respondents, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 70,774/- has not been paid to the petitioner, till date.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted by referring to the counter affidavit filed in the present case that the petitioner has neither sold paddy at the Dharaut PACS on 31.03.2015 nor thereafter, hence the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from this Hon’ble Court.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the materials available on record. I find that a disputed question of fact has arisen in the present case, inasmuch as while it is the contention of the petitioner that he had sold paddy to the PACS in question whereas it is the averment of the respondents that no paddy was sold by the petitioner, thus admittedly such disputed question of fact cannot be decided in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, it would be gainful to reproduce paragraph no. 4 of the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner in the present case, which is reproduced hereinbelow: –

“(4) On 31.03.2015, the petitioner brought his paddy in a hired tractor at the Purchase Center Makhdumpur get it unloaded, the Center Purchase Incharge got weighed the paddy bags and kept them in Godown, the weight of the aforesaid paddy was wrongly recorded 4 quintal less than the actual weight in a Register. The petitioner demanded receipt of the purchase of the aforesaid paddy from the incharge and also pointed out of 4 quintal less weight but he told the petitioner that receipt is not required to be given as the register containing the weight of all farmers will be sent to PACS Chairman for payment.”

It is apparent from the aforesaid paragraph no. 4 of the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner that the petitioner does not possess any receipt to show that he had sold the paddy in question, thus the present writ petition is based on ill-founded and unsubstantiated facts.

6. It is a trite law that the Court will not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where the petitioner has an alternative remedy, with which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy a