JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. D. Nath, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, for State respondents No.1, 2 and 6, Mr. J.C. Choudhury, learned Advocate for the respondent No.3, and Mr. S.B. Rahman, learned Advocate for the respondents No.4 and 5. 2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the enquiry report dated 03.03.2013 by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Home Department (respondent No.1), and for a direction to the respondents to return the seized properties and documents described in Schedule-A including cash amount of Rs.4,69,530/- and Indian Postal Order (IPO) amounting to Rs.8,19,990/- and for directing the respondents to pay compensation amounting to Rs.1,90,63,500/-. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the office of the petitioner No.1 Society was sealed by the State Police by virtue of orders passed by the District Magistrate (respondent No.2), thereby stopping the functioning of the society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Accordingly, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition and this Court, by order dated 25.01.2011 in W.P.(C) No. 3551/2009, had passed the following order:- "21. In the given case, this Court is also of the opinion that an enquiry be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Secretary as to whether the serious allegations made by the petitioner against the respondents No.2, 3, 4 and 5 are correct or not. The said enquiry should be conducted by the Secretary, Home Department Govt. of Assam by giving sufficient opportunity to both the parties to put up their case. In case the serious allegations and assertions made by the petitioner hereinabove against the respondents No.2, 3, 4 and 5 are correct, necessary appropriate follow up action should be taken up by the concerned authority of the Govt. of Assam. The respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to remove the seal put on the door of the petitioner-society in presence of the Director of the petitioner-society and the officer-in-charge of North Lakhimpur District, within one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment and order. Interim order dated 31.08.2009 passed in the present writ petition is made absolute. The petitioner society is directed to approach the Secretary/ Commissioner/ Principal Secretary, Home Department Govt. Interim order dated 31.08.2009 passed in the present writ petition is made absolute. The petitioner society is directed to approach the Secretary/ Commissioner/ Principal Secretary, Home Department Govt. of Assam, respondents No. 2 and 3 with a copy of the writ petition and certified copy of this order for compliance. It is made clear that enquiry should be completed by the authority indicated above within 4(four) months from the date of receipt of this order. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that on the date when the office of the petitioner No. 1 society was sealed, the petitioner had properties which are morefully described in Schedule-A of the writ petition, which included furniture, fixtures and fittings valued at Rs.4,93,040/-, agricultural items valued at Rs.1,03,93,000/-, and animal husbandry including livestock like jersey cows, pigs, goat, chicken, duck, honey- house, cultivated grazing field, wet-lands (beel), etc., valued at Rs.86,70,500/- aggregating a sum of Rs.1,95,56,540/-. It is also submitted that the respondents No. 2 to 5 had seized and removed cash amount of Rs.4,69,530/-, I.P.O. of Rs.8,19,990/-. However, no formal seizure list was provided to the petitioners and when the seal of the office was removed, none of these items were returned, but the enquiry officer while perfunctorily preparing his order impugned herein, did not consider the claim of the petitioner and, as such, it is submitted that the money claim of the petitioners and for directing the respondents to pay compensation amounting to Rs.1,90,63,500/- was fully justified. 5. It is submitted that the enquiry was conducted by the respondent No.1 belatedly and in a perfunctory manner, thereby exonerating the respondents No.2 to 5. It is submitted that the said enquiry report dated 03.03.2013 was faulty, arbitrary, and the same was conducted in contravention of the mandate of the order dated 25.01.2011 in W.P.(C) No. 3551/2009. By referring to the impugned enquiry report, it is submitted that the Home Secretary of the State, did not conduct any on-spot enquiry and relied only on the documents and materials produced by the District Administration. By referring to the impugned enquiry report, it is submitted that the Home Secretary of the State, did not conduct any on-spot enquiry and relied only on the documents and materials produced by the District Administration. In this regard, it is stated that while the case projected by the petitioners is that the authorities had seized valuable properties, cash, IPO, etc., In para-10 of the said enquiry report dated 03.03.2013, on the basis of Deputy Commissioners order dated 13.03.2003, the enquiry officer had recorded his satisfaction that all the records related to PSES were returned, without stating whether there was any document of handing- over/ taking- over of the seized articles or enumerating what documents/ securities were returned. The enquiry officer had also not mentioned in his report whether any seizure list had been prepared at the time of sealing the office and taking away the seized documents and securities. It is also submitted that despite serious allegations made by the petitioners against the respondent No.3, namely, Sri G.C. Sarma, it has been mentioned in the enquiry report that the said official had not cooperated with the authorities for which affidavit- in- opposition was not filed in W.P.(C) 3551/2009, yet no action was taken against him to compel him to cooperate with the administration, which clearly proved the highhandedness of the concerned officials at the time when the office of the petitioners was sealed. It is also submitted that assuming but not admitting that the petitioners were illegally collecting money from job aspirants, but that action did not empower the District Administration and Police Administration in Lakhimpur to whimsically seal the office of the petitioners and seizure books, documents, cash, IPO, etc. there from. It is also stated that there was no materials to show that the said articles were physically returned to the petitioners. It is submitted that the finding in para-8 of the enquiry report is to the effect that the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur had ordered to break open the lock of the so called office in the presence of the Officer- in- Charge of North Lakhimpur Police Station and the Director of NGO, but when they visited the premises, they found that the said office was already unlocked and it was under the possession of some other organisation. Accordingly, all the assets that were in the office premises were misappropriated by the District and Police Administration. Accordingly, all the assets that were in the office premises were misappropriated by the District and Police Administration. Hence, it is submitted that therefore, the said enquiry report dated 03.03.2013 was liable to be set aside and that the petitioner is entitled to all relief’s as prayed for in the writ petition. 6. Per contra, the learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate has submitted that the present writ petition was based on same facts upon which the previous writ petition was filed. It is submitted that by order No. LDC/1/2003/6 dated 13.03.2003, issued on the petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur had recorded his satisfaction based on enquiry report submitted by respondent No.3, who was then posted as EAC and Executive Magistrate, North Lakhimpur that functioning of PSES/ PSEC/ USEC, etc. cannot be considered at North Lakhimpur as it is found to have been a cheating agency/ organisation. It was further recorded that all the records relating to PSES are being returned forthwith. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur was directed to take necessary steps to ensure that the functioning of PSES/ PSEC/ USEC at North Lakhimpur was stopped. By referring to the office copy thereof which is appended to the Affidavit- in- Opposition filed by the respondent No.3 as Annexure-X (pg.14), it is submitted that Sri Pradip Bora, projecting himself to be the Managing Director of the petitioner No.1 had received all the documents, in acknowledgement of which he had put his signature. It is further submitted that the District and Police Administration had stopped the functioning of the petitioners at North Lakhimpur pursuant to the orders passed by the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur. However, there is nothing on record that the said premises was sealed by the District or Police Administration. It is also submitted that as the above referred order dated 13.03.2003 was received by the Managing Director of the petitioners on 13.03.2003 itself, the said document was annexed with the previous writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 3551/2009. However, at the relevant time, the petitioners had never raised any grievance that their documents were not actually returned. It is also submitted that highly disputed questions have been raised in this writ petition, which ought not to be decided in a writ petition. However, at the relevant time, the petitioners had never raised any grievance that their documents were not actually returned. It is also submitted that highly disputed questions have been raised in this writ petition, which ought not to be decided in a writ petition. In the said context, it is submitted that except for a vague statement that value of goods and articles in Schedule-A of the writ petition, being furniture, fixtures and fittings had the value of Rs.4,93,040/-, agricultural items had the value at Rs.1,03,93,000/-, and animal husbandry including livestock like jersey cows, pigs, goat, chicken, duck, honey- house, cultivated grazing field, wet-lands (beel), etc., had the value of Rs.86,70,500/- aggregating a sum of Rs.1,95,56,540/- and that the respondents No. 2 to 5 had seized and removed cash amount of Rs.4,69,530/-, I.P.O. of Rs.8,19,990/-, there is no material to show before this Court that such goods and articles were seized or taken away by the respondent No.3 or that the office of the petitioners was sealed by the District and Police Administration, which is the reason why in order to give possession of said premises to the petitioners, direction was issued by the administration to break the lock. Therefore, it is submitted that unless the actual loss was proved by the petitioners, the State cannot be saddled with any liability of paying compensation to the petitioner. The learned advocate for the respondent No.3 had made similar submissions, denying any liability. 7. On the perusal of the statements made in W.P.(C) No. 3551/2009, it is seen that in para-27 thereof, it was stated that on 17.08.2001, the Director and Manager of the petitioner No.1 society had come to Guwahati for treatment and when they reached Lakhimpur on 19.08.2001, the office of the petitioners was found sealed and on enquiry, he came to know that the sealing was done by respondent No.3. In para-32 thereof, it has been mentioned that after sealing of its office on 19.08.2001 by the respondent No.3, memorandum was filed before the Chief Minister of the State on 28.10.2002, explaining the cause for the delay. Upon perusal of the said Memorandum dated 28.10.2002 (pg.100-103 of the writ petition), it is seen that no date of sealing of office has been mentioned therein and there is no request for de-sealing of the office or for providing seizure list. Upon perusal of the said Memorandum dated 28.10.2002 (pg.100-103 of the writ petition), it is seen that no date of sealing of office has been mentioned therein and there is no request for de-sealing of the office or for providing seizure list. However, the petitioners had merely made a request for granting financial help and to save the petitioners from aggression of the respondent No.3. There are other representations dated 29.10.2002, 26.03.2003 and 26.03.2003 on record, and in none of the said representations, there is any mention about seizure of any valuable assets, cash IPO, etc., by the respondent No.3. As per notice dated 17.04.2003 (pg.112 of writ petition), a meeting was called 30.03.2003 regarding functioning of the petitioners at Lakhimpur. In para-40 of W.P.(C) 3551/2009 (pg.57), it is stated that the Director of the petitioners had attended the said meeting. The minutes of the said meeting is annexed as Annexure-X-5 in the A/o filed by the respondent No.3, which does not contain anything to show that the petitioners had raised any grievance that their valuable assets, cash money and IPO were seized, but not returned. Therefore, the claim that some valuable assets, cash and IPO appears to be raised for the first time in the previously instituted W.P.(C) No. 3551/2009. It appears from the material on record that save and except a statement that the sealing of the office was done by the respondent No.3, no attempt has been made by the petitioners to show that the sealing of the office of the petitioners was actually done by the respondent No.3 by annexing any document evidencing such sealing. If any sealing was done by respondent No.3, who is projected to be then posted as EAC, then there has to be some record somewhere or there might even be a G.D.E. in the concerned police station, if any such sealing was done with police assistance. 8. Moreover, there has been no attempt by the petitioners to disown his signature towards acknowledgement of order dated 13.03.2013 (pg.14 of A/O filed by respondent No.3), or to challenge the correctness of the said order in an appropriate proceeding. Thus, the ineffaceable impression of this Court is that the all the records relating to the petitioners were returned. 8. Moreover, there has been no attempt by the petitioners to disown his signature towards acknowledgement of order dated 13.03.2013 (pg.14 of A/O filed by respondent No.3), or to challenge the correctness of the said order in an appropriate proceeding. Thus, the ineffaceable impression of this Court is that the all the records relating to the petitioners were returned. Therefore, as the petitioner had no grievance about non receipt of anything left out no grievance was ventilated in writing before the competent authority at the first available opportunity. 9. Moreover, it is seen that in the said W.P.(C) 3551/2009, the petitioners had prayed for a direction to the respondents No.2 and 3 to return the seized properties and documents described in Schedule-A including cash amount of Rs.4,69,530/- and Indian Postal Order (IPO) amounting to Rs.8,19,990/- and for directing the respondents No. 2 to 5 and 7 therein to pay compensation amounting to Rs.1,90,63,500/-. This Court by the order dated 25.01.2011, in W.P.(C) No. 3551/2009 had directed that the matter be enquired by the Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Assam. The aggrieved petitioners had preferred an appeal, which was registered as W.A. No. 121/2012, which was disposed of by order dated 04.05.2012. The said order is extracted below:- "This appeal has been preferred against the order passed by learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition of the appellants and quashing the order dated 13.03.2003 whereby functioning of the appellant society had been stopped. Direction has also been issued to enquire into the allegation and assertion of the appellants against the official respondents. In view of nature of order already passed by learned Single Judge, no further order is necessary at this stage. The appellants can seek implementation of order of learned Single Judge and can challenge the result of the enquiry if they are aggrieved. The appeal is disposed of." 10. Thus, it is seen that when the proceedings of W.P.(C) No. 3551/2009 and W.A. No. 121/2012 were disposed of, the petitioners had not reserved their right to claim monetary value or compensation in any future proceeding. There are also no materials on record from which this Court can presume that with purported sealing of office of the petitioners, any agricultural items including livestock worth Rs.1,95,56,540/- was also seized and removed by the District and Police Administration which could not have been stored in the office. 11. There are also no materials on record from which this Court can presume that with purported sealing of office of the petitioners, any agricultural items including livestock worth Rs.1,95,56,540/- was also seized and removed by the District and Police Administration which could not have been stored in the office. 11. No document has been annexed with this writ petition to conclusively establish that the petitioners had any valuable assets, cash and IPO having a total value claimed as per Schedule-A of this writ petition. 12. Having perused the materials available on record, and in view of the discussions above, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioners have not been able to establish that any loss of assets, cash or IPO in terms of value as disclosed in Schedule-A of this writ petition was caused to them by action taken by the State respondents No. 1, 2 and 6, or by any action taken by the respondent No.3 (the then EAC, Lakhimpur, and since superannuated). Therefore, this Court does not find the petitioners to be entitled to any relief in this writ petition. 13. It would be appropriate to mention herein that for deciding whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation against monetary loss suffered, the petitioners were required to establish their claim, which could have been done only by producing cogent and admissible evidence. In this case, no evidence in proof of any facts pleaded has been annexed to this writ petition. In this connection, it would be appropriate to refer to the observation made by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (1988) 4 SCC 534 : AIR 1988 SC 2181 , which is extracted below:- "13. In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter- affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. So, the point that has been raised before us by the appellants is not entertain able. But, in spite of that, we have entertained it to show that it is devoid of any merit." 14. Lastly, although this writ petition is found to be devoid of merit, this Court has entertained it because as per record, the earlier writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 3551/2009 was filed by the petitioner on 24.08.2009 and as it is seen that this Court by order dated 04.05.2012 in W.A. No. 121/2012, had granted liberty to the petitioners to challenge the result of the enquiry if they are aggrieved and accordingly, the present writ petition was filed on 26.08.2013, and since then this writ petition is pending for disposal before this Court. Thus, the petitioners are found to be litigating before this Court for the last 10 years. Therefore, under the aforesaid circumstances, the adjudication of highly disputed questions was taken up by this Court and, as such, this judgment and order is not intended to be cited as a precedent, because it is a too well settled law that highly disputed question of fact ought not to be decided in a writ proceeding. 15. In light of the discussions above, this writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own cost.