- (1.) IN this appeal, the petitioner -appellant has challenged the order, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 631 of 2010 dated 15th March, 2010. The learned single Judge has found that prior to this litigation, there was another litigation, in which this Court has countenanced the claim of one Mr. Amit Dutta. The order passed in that case has been appended with the appeal by the appellant. The findings of this Court in that case is in the following terms: Having regard to the fact that two more persons are claiming possession over part of the premises in question allegedly let out by the original proprietor Teja Singh or by the petitioner and having regard to the fact that a civil dispute is going on before the civil court, in my opinion the petitioner may approach the Corporation and get the matter settled with the Corporation. In view of the fact that sufficient amount has been paid by the petitioner to the Corporation against the dues lying in the name of Teja Singh and the petitioner is further willing to pay the balance amount, the Corporation shall take a decision in accordance with law. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot grant any relief to the petitioner. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid direction and observation.
(2.) THE order aforesaid though in the knowledge of the petitioner -appellant has not been challenged and has become final. In terms of this order, the Court has considered that the person against whom the petitioner -appellant is now raising grievance has been given liberty to negotiate with the Corporation and such negotiation have the effect of eclipsing the right of the appellant. The same having become final cannot now be set at knot and in that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner -appellant that he should be permitted to take advantage of I.L.S.R. in restructuring the loan of the unit in question cannot be gone into by this Court more particularly under the circumstances that the appellant admits that the payment made by Mr. Amit Dutta was within his knowledge and was never objected to by him. This conduct of the appellant clearly demonstrates that it was the tacit consent of the appellant that the said Mr. Amit Dutta entered into the transactions with the Corporation. In that view of the matter, what would be the ultimate nature of rights, which would get precipitated in favour of either of the parties cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction, because these are the disputed question of facts. In that view of the matter, the order of the learned single Judge is not considered by us liable to be interfered. There being no force, this appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.;