COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) These appeals are directed against the common order rendered by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petitions instituted by the appellant.
2. The appellant herein sought for a direction to consider the representation as well as the complaint said to have been made by him to the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, complaining bitterly that his younger brother and the said brother's wife have played fraud on him and created bogus documents and have also indulged in forgery. Since such controversial questions of fact can only be resolved after collecting evidence both oral and documentary, but not otherwise, the learned single Judge thought, in our opinion, very rightly, that institution of the proceedings under
Article 226 of the Constitution are not ideally suited, as seldom oral evidence is collected in such a proceeding though such a measure is not forbidden but is resorted to in the rarest of rare cases; may be in cases involving Habeas Corpus. Therefore, the controversial questions of fact which form better part of the grievance nurtured by the writ petitioner/appellant can be got resolved only by taking recourse to the most appropriate proceedings. Inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the civil court is never barred in that regard, it is for the writ petitioner/appellant to explore such an avenue rather than pursuing proceedings under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. We do not find merit in these Appeals. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals stand dismissed at the admission stage itself.