ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. On the allegation that the respondent no.4, Block Development Officer, Gola has illegally detained his Hiwa Vehicle bearing no. JH-02-AC-5253 as surety under threat and coercion, petitioner has approached this Court for direction upon the respondent no.3, the Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh to release his vehicle detained in Gola Police Station. Petitioner also has made a prayer that the respondent no.4 be directed to return Rs. 5 lakh illegally collected from the petitioner. He has asked for certain compensation. 3. Annexure-3 relied upon by the petitioner shows that it is an undertaking furnished for payment of Rs. 5 lakh to the Block Development Officer, Gola in connection with the supplies to be made to the beneficiaries of MNREGA project. Petitioner has kept his Hiwa vehicle as security in lieu there of. The contents of Annexure-3 document shows that petitioner volunteered to seek release of the aforesaid amount and the vehicle after ensuring supplies in a proper manner to the beneficiaries under the MNREGA project and that he has given this undertaking with full consciousness and at his own free will. 4. It transpires from the affidavit of the respondents sworn by the respondent no.4 that beneficiaries of same MNREGA project could not get the material on site and some duplicate scheme was created in MIS, which did not exist in the official record and material payments had been done to the vendor. The scheme referred to are “Lutan Mahto Ka 12' Well Construction”, Scheme No.55/2014-15, Sanctioned amount of Rs. 1,19,900, Panchayat-Sangrampur panchayat. The replicated scheme was known as “Gabion Plantation” with same work code in which material payment had been done worth Rs. 61,000/- to vendor D.K. Stone. The scheme had been changed to Bariyatu Panchayat and replicated into second false scheme with the same name “12” well construction of Lutan Mahto” with different code for which material had been booked worth Rs.47,400/- but not processed for the payments. After the inquiry ordered by the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, report was submitted by the Deputy Development Commissioner on 10.9.2015. It is further stated that 50 schemes had been replicated in MIS as duplicate schemes. Material payment worth Rs.74,62,632 had been made to vendor wrongly for 87 schemes and out of these Rs.69,88,910 had been paid in the name of D.K. Stone. 5. It is further stated that 50 schemes had been replicated in MIS as duplicate schemes. Material payment worth Rs.74,62,632 had been made to vendor wrongly for 87 schemes and out of these Rs.69,88,910 had been paid in the name of D.K. Stone. 5. As per the case of the respondents, petitioner by way of undertaking, on his own gave in writing that he wants to keep his Hiwa vehicle in any Government premises till he return back the money which he had taken to supply materials for MNREGA scheme under Gola Block. His vehicle is kept inside the Police Station premises. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that these state of facts do portrays irregularities in the execution of the MNREGA scheme which has led to the institution of F.I.R in which petitioner has also been implicated as an accused. Petitioner is said to be in custody in that case. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the averments made in the counter affidavit cannot be made a basis to implicate the petitioner as he is not a government official who is supposed to maintain records relating to MNREGA scheme. He is a supplier of material. 7. Factual details on record noticed herein above do give two impressions, first that Annexure-3 was executed on free will by the petitioner in his consciousness offering surety in relation to some supply and payments to be made under MNREGA project. Contention of the petitioner that undertaking was executed on duress or coercion is not substantiated as there are no instances of any complaint or F.I.R lodged against any concerned person on that account. On the other hand, execution of MNREGA scheme in the concerned Block upon investigation and inquiry has led to the institution of F.I.R in which petitioner is also accused. Whether seizure of the vehicle is in connection with instant case or not is a subject matter to be gone into by the competent Court where the said F.I.R has been lodged. 8. In any case, the issue involves disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In that view of the matter, petitioner is given liberty to approach the competent Court of law or the competent authority/Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh for release of his vehicle if not detained or seized in connection with any criminal case. 9. In that view of the matter, petitioner is given liberty to approach the competent Court of law or the competent authority/Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh for release of his vehicle if not detained or seized in connection with any criminal case. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.