ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. 3. THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE HIGH COURT WAS DISPOSED OF BY THE FOLLOWING ORDER: "HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. THE PETITION INVOLVES DISPUTED QUESTION OF FACT. THE SAME CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE ENTERTAINED. THE PETITION, IS THEREFORE, DISMISSED." 4. AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER EXTRACTED ABOVE, THE HIGH COURT DISPOSED OF THE WRIT PETITION MERELY OBSERVING THAT THE DISPUTED QUESTION OF FACT WAS INVOLVED IN THE WRIT PETITION, BUT, WITHOUT BRIEFLY REFERRING TO WHAT THE DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT WERE THAT AROSE FOR CONSIDERATION. 5. IN OUR VIEW, THE IMPUGNED ORDER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. IT WAS EXPECTED OF THE HIGH COURT TO DEAL WITH THE CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE WRIT PETITION. WITHOUT EXPRESSING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ON MERITS, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND REMIT THE WRIT PETITION TO THE HIGH COURT FOR CONSIDERATION ON MERITS. IF THERE IS ANY SUBSEQUENT EVENT, IT IS OPEN TO THE APPELLANT TO AMEND THE WRIT PETITION ACCORDINGLY. 6. THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. 7. NO COSTS.