JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Instant writ petition has been filed, claiming following relief’s:- "a) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent-authorities make payment on account of damage caused to the building of the petitioner (on account of collapsing of the HRTC Booking Office Building), situated at Khasra Nos.679 and 680 below H.R.T.C. Building at Bus Stand, Theog amounting to Rs.34.00 lacs alongwith interest @ 12% from the date of damage. (b) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent-authorities to make good the loss of Rs.30,000/- per month being incurred by the petitioner on account of rent being received from the erstwhile tenants who post damage to the building left the same as the same was declared unsafe and unfit for human habitation." 2. 2(I). The reliefs reproduced above, have been prayed, primarily on the following factual matrix:- 2(ii). Rapat No.028 (Annexure P-1 Colly), dated 10.07.2017, was filed at Police Station, Theog, District Shimla, on the basis of a telephonic information supplied by Shri Mohinder Mahinder Jharaiak, son of the petitioner, to the effect that :- at Theog Bus Stand, the existing HRTC building has already been declared unsafe; it can collapse at any time during rainy season; and the house of the informant is situated below this building, where tenants also reside. 2(iii). On the basis of this information, another Rapat No.031, dated 10.07.2017, was entered to the effect that:- on the spot, building owned by Shri Mohinder Jharaik was below HRTC building, in which cracks had developed; its foundation was displaced; as per Adda-In-charge, the building had been declared as unsafe; this was also confirmed by the Regional Manager, HRTC, on telephone, who further informed that the SDO and JEE, HPPWD, would be inspecting the spot; and the tenants were informed about their safety. 2(iv). The HRTC building collapsed on 04.08.2017. F.I.R. No.0138 (Annexure P-2) was registered on 04.08.2017, at Police Station, Theog, Distt. Shimla. 2(iv). After the collapse of HRTC building, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla, vide Annexure P-3, dated 05.08.2017, directed the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishid, Theog, to inspect all such buildings, which were in dilapidated conditions, whether belonging to Government/Municipal Council/Private and which needed to be declared as unsafe. The Municipal Council was further directed to submit report of such unsafe structures. The Municipal Council was further directed to submit report of such unsafe structures. It was also asked to serve notices upon the owners for vacation of such unsafe structures. Petitioner's building figured in this letter, as the one requiring immediate inspection and in case it was found unsafe, notice was required to be given to the owner for its vacation for protecting the lives and property. 2(v). In compliance to the directions of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Theog, vide communication dated 05.08.2017, Annexure P-3, directed the petitioner to vacate his building, observing therein that the land strata under the building adjoining to the collapsed HRTC building had become loose, thereby endangering petitioner's building. 2(vi). Petitioner got his building evaluated from a private Valuator vide Annexure P-4, dated 21.08.2017, wherein cost of the building has been assessed at Rs.33,16,140/- and Rs.10,00,000/- has been assessed as cost of transportation and for removal of the debris. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. 4(I). Mr. B.C. Negi, learned senior counsel, has contended that the petitioner has suffered damages to his property on account of ill maintained and dilapidated HRTC building, which eventually collapsed, in-turn causing damage to petitioner's property. Post such damage, 11 tenants residing in petitioner's building left, causing him a rental loss of Rs.30,000/- per month. Learned senior counsel further argued that petitioner is entitled for damages as prayed for. He submitted that the petitioner is at least entitled for interim compensation in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 4(ii) In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel, relied upon:- (i) titled Rudul Sah versus State of Bihar and Another, (1983) 4 SCC 141 ; (ii) titled Rabindra Nath Ghosal verus University of Calcutta and others, (2002) 7 SCC 478; (iii) titled Real Estate Agencies versus State of Goa and others, (2012) 12 SCC 170 ; and (iv) Municipal Corporation of Delhi versus Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association, (2011) 14 SCC 481 . 4(iii)(a). The writ petition is resisted on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4 by filing their separate replies. No reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. 4(iii)(b). 4(iii)(a). The writ petition is resisted on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4 by filing their separate replies. No reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. 4(iii)(b). Respondent No.4, i.e., Sub Divisional Officer(C), Theog, District, Shimla, in its reply, it has stated that sudden collapse of HRTC building resulted in loss of four lives and damaged the adjoining building of the petitioner and that compensation for the damaged building to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- has already been paid to the petitioner. 4(iii)(c). The reply filed by respondent No.3/HRTC, is relevant in respect of the issues raised by the writ petitioner, as it is respondent No.3/HRTC, which is the main contesting party. In its reply, HRTC, has disputed all factual averments made in the writ petition. This reply disputes the alleged location of petitioner's building, does not admit it to be located below HRTC building. Reply infact asserts that petitioner's building was itself in dilapidated condition and therefore, damage, if any caused to it, is because of its own precarious condition. It has been denied by HRTC that their building fell over the petitioner's building and in-turn caused any loss to it. It is the specific stand of HRTC that petitioner's building was itself in precarious condition and that is why the petitioner had already got his building vacated from the tenants. The valuation report, got prepared by the petitioner from the Valuator, has not been admitted by HRTC. The reply of HRTC, is that it does not admit any damage having been caused to the petitioner's building by HRTC building. Thus, in short, the stand of the HRTC is that disputed question of facts are involved in the writ petition. The case of the petitioner fixing liability for the alleged damages to his building, if any, on the part of the HRTC, is not admitted; and it is further asserted by HRTC that even if some damage has been caused to the petitioner's building, then reasons thereof have to be proved by him, the liability to pay such damage has to be fixed and established, which can be done only by leading cogent and reliable evidence besides determining actual damages, in a Competent Court of Law. 4(iii)(d). In support of its defence, Mr. 4(iii)(d). In support of its defence, Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned standing counsel representing the HRTC, has relied upon, titled ABL International Ltd., and another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and others, (2004) 3 SCC 553 . 4(iii)(e). Learned standing counsel has also relied upon judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.48 of 2011 titled Shri Satija Rajesh N vs. State of H.P. and others. 5. 5(I). In my considered view, the law relied upon by learned senior counsel for the petitioner, pertains to grant of compensation, in case of claim in public law for contravention of human rights by resorting to constitutional remedies provided for enforcement of fundamental rights. The compensation can be granted, of course, when the Court comes to a definite conclusion that there has been a violation of fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitutional of India. However, in the present case, the Municipal Council, Theog, has though declared the petitioner's building as unsafe, but, (a) whether any damage has been caused to petitioner's building or not; (b) whether alleged damage is on account of dilapidated condition of HRTC building or not; (c) whether petitioner's building was already existing in precarious condition and suffered damage on its own; (d) determination of damage etc., all these factual aspects need to be gone into for determination of the damages caused to the petitioner's building; extent of damage caused to the petitioner's building; the reasons for such damage; and the liability to pay for the alleged damages. The issues are required to be framed for determination of these complex and disputed facts. The evidence is also required to be led to prove the issues. It is only thereafter that the findings on these points can be arrived at. The decision on these points, on disputed and complex questions of facts, will not be possible in this writ petition, merely on the basis of contentions of the petitioner, which are disputed by the contesting respondent. It will be appropriate in this regard to refer to: 5(ii). titled Joshi Technologies International INC verus Union of India and Others, (2015) 7 SCC 728 . "69. The position thus summarized in the aforesaid principles has to be understood in the context of discussion that preceded which we have pointed out above. It will be appropriate in this regard to refer to: 5(ii). titled Joshi Technologies International INC verus Union of India and Others, (2015) 7 SCC 728 . "69. The position thus summarized in the aforesaid principles has to be understood in the context of discussion that preceded which we have pointed out above. As per this, no doubt, there is no absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition even in contractual matters or where there are disputed questions of fact or even when monetary claim is raised. At the same time, discretion lies with the High Court which under certain circumstances, can refuse to exercise. It also follows that under the following circumstances, 'normally', the Court would not exercise such a discretion: 69.1. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 69.2. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 69.3. If there are very serious disputed questions of fact which are of complex nature and require oral evidence for their determination. ---------------------------------------------------------- 70.3. Even in cases where question is of choice or consideration of competing claims before entering into the field of contract, facts have to be investigated and found before the question of a violation of Article 14 could arise. If those facts are disputed and require assessment of evidence the correctness of which can only be tested satisfactorily by taking detailed evidence, Involving examination and cross-examination of witnesses, the case could not be conveniently or satisfactorily decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In such cases court can direct the aggrieved party to resort to alternate remedy of civil suit etc." 5(iii). In titled State of Kerala and others versus M.K. Jose, (2015) 9 SCC 433 Hon'ble Apex Court considered the issue of maintainability of writ petition on disputed facts and observed as under:- "13. A writ court should ordinarily not entertain a writ petition, if there is a breach of contract involving disputed questions of fact. The present case clearly indicates that the factual disputes are involved." After taking note of various pronouncements on issue, including titled State of Bihar and others verus Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd., (2002) 1 SCC 216 ; titled Smt. Gunwant Kaur and others versus Municipal Committee, Bhatinda and Others, (1969) 3 SCC 769 ; and titled ABL International Ltd. and Another. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 553 It was held by Hon'ble Apex Court:- "20. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 553 It was held by Hon'ble Apex Court:- "20. We have referred to the aforesaid authorities to highlight under what circumstances in respect of contractual claim or challenge to violation of contract can be entertained by a writ court. It depends upon facts of each case. The issue that had arisen in ABL International was that an instrumentality of a State was placing a different construction on the clauses of the contract of insurance and the insured was interpreting the contract differently. The Court thought it apt merely because something is disputed by the insurer, it should not enter into the realm of disputed questions of fact. In fact, there was no disputed question of fact, but it required interpretation of the terms of the contract of insurance. Similarly, if the materials that come on record from which it is clearly evincible, the writ court may exercise the power of judicial review but, a pregnant one, in the case at hand, the High Court has appointed a Commission to collect the evidence, accepted the same without calling for objections from the respondent and quashed the order of termination of contract." 5(iv). Civil Appeal Nos.11857-11859 of 2018, titled Sanjay Kumar Jha versus Prakash Chandra Chaudhary and Ors., decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on 05.12.2018. Relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under:- "13. It is well settled that in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court does not adjudicate, upon affidavits, disputed questions of fact. In arriving at the finding that the land offered by respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary was located within Giriyama Mauza of Falka Block the learned Single Bench embarked upon adjudication of a hotly disputed factual issue, which the High Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction, does not do." 5(v). A Division Bench of this Court, while deciding LPA No.48/2011, observed as under:- "29. The disputed questions of facts have been raised by the writ petitioners, particularly in paras 8, 9 and 10 of the writ petition, which cannot be gone through by the writ Court. It was for the writ petitioner to prove, at least, prima facie, the grounds taken in paras 8, 9 and 10 of the writ petition. 30. The disputed questions of facts have been raised by the writ petitioners, particularly in paras 8, 9 and 10 of the writ petition, which cannot be gone through by the writ Court. It was for the writ petitioner to prove, at least, prima facie, the grounds taken in paras 8, 9 and 10 of the writ petition. 30. The writ Court has made discussions in the judgment as if it was determining a civil suit, after going through the entire trial, i.e. after framing issues and leading evidence. 31. The writ Court has also brushed aside the affidavit filed by the Chief Executive Officer of writ respondent No. 2-HIMUDA, who has mentioned in the affidavit that the bid of the successful bidders-appellants in LPA No. 1 of 2011 was received on 14th September, 2006. How the writ Court came to the conclusion that the affidavit of the Chief Executive Officer is not correct or it should have been supported by other affidavits. It appears that the writ Court has fallen in error in returning findings on disputes questions of facts. 32. The Apex Court in a case titled as D.L.F. Housing Construction (P) Ltd. versus Delhi Municipal Corpn. and others, AIR 1976 SC 386 , has held that the disputed question of facts cannot be gone through by the writ Court and the writ Court cannot return findings on disputed questions of facts. It is apt to reproduce para 18 of the judgment herein: "18. In our opinion, in a case where the basic facts are disputed, and complicated questions of law and fact depending on evidence are involved the writ court is not the proper forum for seeking relief. The right course of the High Court to follow was to dismiss the writ petition on this preliminary ground, without entering upon the merits of the case. In the absence of firm and adequate factual foundation, it was hazardous to embark upon a determination of the points involved. On this short ground while setting aside the findings of the High Court, we would dismiss both the findings of the High Court, we would dismiss both the writ petition and the appeal with costs. The appellants may if so advised, seek their remedy by a regular suit." 33. The same principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in Daljit Singh Dalal (dead) through L.Rs. The appellants may if so advised, seek their remedy by a regular suit." 33. The same principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in Daljit Singh Dalal (dead) through L.Rs. Versus Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 1367 and Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and others versus Smt. Sukamani Das and another, AIR 1999 SC 3412 . 34. The Apex Court in a case titled as State of Karnataka and Ors. versus KGSD Canteen Employees Welfare Association and Ors., (2006) AIR (SCW) 212, has held that High Court should not exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in cases where disputed questions of facts have been raised. It is apt to reproduce paras 37 and 40 of the judgment herein: "37. In a case of this nature, where serious disputed questions fact were raised, in our opinion, it was not proper for the High Court to embark thereupon an exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court in its judgment relied upon a large number of decisions of this court, inter alia, in Reserve Bank of India (supra) and State Bank of India and others v. State Bank of India Canteen Employees Union (Bengal circle) and others, AIR 2000 SC 1518 ignoring the fact that all such disputes were adjudicated in an industrial adjudication. 38. .............. 39. .............. 40. It was, furthermore, reiterated that a disputed question of fact normally not be entertained in a writ proceeding." 35. The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in Orissa Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and others versus Bharati Industries and others, AIR 2006 SC 198 and Rajinder Singh versus State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors., (2008) AIR (SCW) 5157." 5(vi). In (2012) 9 SCC 552 , paras 176 and 177, the Apex Court relying upon AIR 1952 SCC 12 and (1983) 4 SCC 625 , has held that an interim relief can be granted only in aid of, and as ancillary to, the main releif which may be available to the party on final determination of his right in a suit or proceeding. But power to grant temporary injunction was conferred in aid or as ancillary to the final relief that may be granted. If the final relief cannot be granted in terms, as prayed for, temporary relief in same terms can not be granted. 6. But power to grant temporary injunction was conferred in aid or as ancillary to the final relief that may be granted. If the final relief cannot be granted in terms, as prayed for, temporary relief in same terms can not be granted. 6. In the facts and circumstances of instant case, there is a serious dispute of facts between the parties about any damage having been caused to the petitioner's building because of collapse of HRTC building; reasons for alleged damages, if any, caused to petitioner's building allegedly already itself standing in dilapidated and precarious condition; liability to pay for such damages; quantification of damages etc.; it is, therefore, not within the writ jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and decide this case on merits under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy, in accordance with law, for claiming the reliefs sought for by him. It is, however, made clear that any observation made above is only for the purpose of deciding present writ petition and will not affect the rights and contentions of the parties to be adjudicated by the competent Forum. It is also made clear that period spent in present litigation will not be counted towards limitation for petitioner's availing appropriate remedy by approaching the competent Forum. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.