B.K. Roy and Vijay Manohar Sahai, JJ. - (1.) THE prayer of the petitioners, who are own brothers is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the police authorities to vacate the premises in dispute showed in Annexures 1 and 1 -A to the writ petition and hand over its full possession to them. The main thrust of the submission of Sri S.A. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the police authorities have illegally taken possession of the premises in dispute and thus they are bound to vacate it.
(2.) MR . S. Mehrotra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents with reference to the voluminous records contended that it was father of the petitioners who had leased out the premises in question and thus the submission that it has been forcibly occupied is without any substance and thus the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He also showed us some papers which, according to Mr. Mehrotra, were also signed by petitioner No. 1 Iqbal Ahmad which when showed to learned counsel for the petitioners who, in turn, does not dispute it to be an incorrect document. In this regard, Mr. Mehrotra contended that this document was only for asking for rent. From the pleadings of the petitioners themselves the following facts emerge. M/s. Phoola Cold Storage, Phool Bagh Colony, Meerut City belonged to the father of the petitioners after whose death they had become its owners. In April, 1987 communal not took place. In order to manage and control law and order situation in Meerut city the father of the petitioners was requested by the Respondents to put one picket of police in portion of the aforesaid cold storage. Their father allowed the Respondents to hold the same in order to manage and control law and order situation. Their further case is that Respondents 2 to 4 had assured that the police picket will be located out of the premises and the same will be vacated but since it has not been vacated, hence, this writ petition. This allegations have been denied by the Respondents in their pleadings. It is thus apparent that this constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot adjudicate the disputed questions of fact. The remedy of the petitioners is to file appropriate proceedings for eviction of the respondent if they objectively find merit in their case. With these observations this writ petition is dismissed. The office is directed to hand over a copy of this order to Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned Additional Government Advocate for intimation to the authority concerned. ;