The High Court has the discretion to decide or not to decide a disputed question of fact in a particular case under Article 226 of the Constitution, depending on the circumstances of each case.

1. Ranbir Singh Chadha filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the instructions issued by the Chief Commercial Superintendent (Rates) on 1-11-1957. This petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and the petitioner has now filed this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

2. The facts leading to this appeal are these. The petitioner imports white stone for manufacturing lime for chemical purposes from the quarries of A. Dean and Company situated in Dehra Dun district. In 1958 he placed an order with this Company to despatch one wagon load of this commodity to Delhi. The Railway Authorities classified it as marble ballast or chins and demanded freight on that basis. The importer, however, required it to be classified as lime stone and to be charged as such.

Admittedly the rate for marble ballast and chips is higher than those for lime stone. For this attitude, the Railway Authorities relied on the instructions issued on 1-11-1957. The petitioner thereupon filed this petition alleging that the commodity sought to be imported was in fact lime stone and further that the impugned instructions were discriminatory against him, thereby violating provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The respondents pleaded that the commodity concerned was marble ballast and chips and that impugned instructions did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as preference was given to paper and sugar factories in public interest. The respondents further pleaded that there was no competition of the petitioners trade with paper and sugar factories and, therefore, no question of discrimination against the petitioner arose in the case.

The learned Single Judge held that the impugned instructions were discriminatory against the petitioner but dismissed the petition on the ground that whether the commodity sought to be imported was marble ballast and chips or lime stone raised a disputed question of fact which could not be decided in those proceedings.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant started to argue this appeal on the assumption that the commodity sought to be transported was marble ballast and chips as alleged by the Railway Authorities. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, objected to the appellant taking up this position and urged that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution must first be amended before this new case arising out of facts stated in the written statement can be argued. This contention of the respondents had prevailed with the learned Single Judge and this is the first question that requires determination in this appeal.

4. The respondents case is that it is well established that the disputed facts cannot be decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and that such a petition fails on this ground alone. The learned Counsel further urged that such a petition cannot be decided on the facts given in the written statement unless the petitioner on the basis of these facts further obtained permission of the High Court.

5. Now there can be no doubt that the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution are summary in nature and a detailed enquiry into facts is ordinarily not Contemplated therein. There is, however, nothing in this article to indicate that the High Court in these proceedings is debarred from holding such an enquiry. The proposition that a petition under Article 226 must be dismissed simply on the ground that it cannot be decided without determining the disputed questions of facts is not warranted by any provision of law nor by any decision of the Supreme Court.

A rigid application of this proposition or to treat this proposition as an inflexible rule of law or of discretion will necessarily make the provisions of Article 226 wholly illusory and ineffective. Obviously High Court must avoid such consequences. Every petitioner in the nature of things seeks relief under Article 226 of the Constitution