Short Note : 1. By the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, Bhagwandas had challenged the demand notices by which certain amounts were found due from him as surety on account of contracts of liquor granted-to the principal party Ramakant. The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that as a matter of fact the, petitioner had never stood surety for Ramakant, but had actually attended the bid list, and, therefore he is not liable to pay the dues. The learned Government Advocate opposed the petition on the ground that the point canvassed by the petitioner was one of pure fact which could not be decided in writ jurisdiction. Held : This Court is or opinion, that objection raised by the learned Government Advocate to the decision of the petition on merits are not without force. This Court cannot for the first time decide controverted questions of fact of the type that arise in this case. The petitioner, if so advised, may file a suit, but at this stage this Court finds wholly unable to give any relief to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.