Question regarding facts of law and factual controversy cannot be adjudicated under writ petitions.

Markandey Katju, CJ.

These writ appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 18.11.2004. We have heard Mr.G.Masilamani, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel for the first respondent in W.A.No.61 of 2005 and Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned senior counsel for the first respondent in W.A.No.62 of 2005.

2. The first respondent was a Town Planning Inspector in the services of the appellant Municipal Corporation. He was charge sheeted on 13.12.1997. The charge against the first respondent (writ petitioner) was that the Town Planning Inspector and Assistant Town Planning Officer (incharge) demanded Rs.50,000/- from the agent of Thiru Radhakrishnan and Soundarajothi for approval of layout in Vilankruchi village. It appears that on that charge an enquiry officer was appointed, who submitted a report dated 19.2.1998. The writ petitioner filed an application to the Commissioner of Coimbatore Corporation dated 25.5.1998 alleging that the enquiry officer has not examined even a single witness and has submitted his report unilaterally and he prayed that the Commissioner should direct the enquiry officer to examine the seven witnesses referred to by him in his presence and permit him to submit his defence explanation. Thereafter it appears that the Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation by order dated 18.8.1998 suspended the writ petitioner pending enquiry.

3. In the affidavit of the writ petitioner in W.P.No.35667 of 2002 it is stated that the enquiry officer recorded the depositions of prosecution witnesses behind the back of the petitioner and did not even furnish a copy of the recorded depositions to the petitioner till 16.7.1999. However, in ground (T) it is mentioned that the enquiry officer in his second report has stated that on 16.7.1999 copies of all documents relating to the charge memo were furnished to the delinquent officer and he has cross examined all the witnesses.

4. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition on the allegation of the petitioner that the enquiry officer told him that the enquiry report was not prepared by him and this conversation was taperecorded.

5. It may be mentioned that in the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.15898 of 1999 the enquiry officer Dr.Subramani, City Health Officer, Corporation of Coimbatore has stated in para 6 of his affidavit as follows:

"The contention of the writ petitioner that he had contacted me by telephone is categorically denied. I never had any telephonic conversation with the writ petitioner either regarding this enquiry or any other subject. Therefore his contention that I have told him over telephonic conversation that the second respondent had taken the papers to Chennai and also got the enquiry report drawn up by an advocate at Chennai and I was asked to sign the same were totally false. His further contention that I have informed him that the enquiry report prepared by some one and signed by me would be served upon him in a day or two and that he could make his representation in that regard is also false. Therefore, his further contention that he had taperecorded the telephonic conversation is totally false because no such conversation ever took place."

6. In view of this factual controversy as to whether the enquiry officer had any conversation with the writ petitioner and made a statement that the enquiry report was not prepared by him, we are of the opinion that such serious factual controversy ought not to be decided in writ jurisdiction as writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum to decide such serious factual controversies. If the writ petitioner wanted to prove that the enquiry officer did not prepare the enquiry report he should have been relegated to his alternative remedy of filing a civil suit where this factual controversy could be gone into by evidence, cross examination etc. In writ jurisdiction although no doubt there is power to take evidence on oath and permit