ORDER : 1. The present Writ Petition came to be filed, seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari by calling for record relating to P.L.C. No. 8445 of 2015 on the file of the District Legal Services Authority, Kurnool along with the award, dated 10.10.2015 and set aside the same on the ground that the respondents have played fraud in obtaining the award. 2. The facts, in issue, are as under: (a) The petitioner herein hails from an agricultural family and after completing his school education, got selected in Border Security Force (for short “B.S.F”) as Constable. He joined in the Battalion of Border Security Force, Ambassa, Tripura on 09.05.1999. While working in B.S.F. he married the 3rd respondent on 24.08.2005 in his native place, as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. He was blessed with male child on 04.08.2006. It is said that because of differences between himself and his wife from November, 2011, she refused to join him on one reason or the other. As such, the petitioner stayed at the place of his employment. As he has no intention to leave the marital life company of his wife, he filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights before the Senior Civil Judge, Markapuram vide O.P. No. 129 of 2019. (b) It is said that an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month is being deducted towards maintenance of his wife and son, from November, 2016 onwards, which fact came to his knowledge much later. His enquires revealed that because of an order passed by Lok Adalat Bench, Kurnool, the said amount is being deducted from his account. After obtaining a copy of the award, dated 10.10.2015, passed by the National Lok Adalat Bench, Kurnool, District Legal Services Authority in P.L.C. No. 8445 of 2015, took steps in filing this petition. (c) The case of the petitioner is that a fraud has been played in obtaining the award. According to him, he was not present in Kurnool on the date of passing of the award and on the other hand, he was travelling from Assam to Kurnool during the said period and on that particular day i.e. on 10.10.2015, he boarded Train No. 17252, which runs between Guntur-Kachiguda, at Cumbhum to go to Kurnool and that the train reached Kurnool at 3.30 AM on 11.10.2015. Hence, pleads that he was not present in Kurnool itself on the date of passing of the award i.e. 10.10.2015 and neither signed the award nor engaged an advocate on his behalf. In other words, the grievance appears to be that everything happened behind his back and he is not aware about the proceedings before the Court. 3. Reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed, in support of the petition and the fact that there is no reference for maintenance to be granted to the children, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the fraud is eminent from record. 4. On the other hand, Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, filed counter, denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. According to him, the petitioner did not approach this Court with clean hands and has not made out any case, which warrants interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India: (a) Learned counsel further submits that the allegation made in Para-4 of the affidavit that the 3rd respondent refused to join with the petitioner in the month of November, 2011, is false and denied. According to him, immediately after marriage, they have set up their family at Ahmedabad where she stayed with him for one year. During the period of her stay in Ahmedabad, the 3rd respondent conceived, and as such came to Kurnool for delivery, in the eighth month of her pregnancy. It is said that after the birth of the child, the petitioner did not even turn up to see her or the child. Long thereafter, the petitioner visited her and promised to take her back to his work place. According to respondent No. 3, till 2011, the petitioner did not turn up and only when his health condition was not good, came down to Kurnool in November, 2011. During which time, the brother of 3rd respondent got him treated in Kurnool Government Hospital. The averments in the counter affidavit speaks about the writ petitioner coming to Kurnool in the month of December, 2011 when he was suffering with malaria and her parents taking care of him till he was discharged from the hospital. The averment that the award came to be passed behind his back is denied. The averments in the counter affidavit speaks about the writ petitioner coming to Kurnool in the month of December, 2011 when he was suffering with malaria and her parents taking care of him till he was discharged from the hospital. The averment that the award came to be passed behind his back is denied. It is further stated that the averments in the affidavit that the petitioner boarded the Train No. 17252, Guntur-Kachiguda express at Cumbhum to go to Kurnool is absolutely false and that there is no such train running between Guntur to Kachiguda. He produced documents in support of the same. (b) According to him, the petitioner was present before the Lok Adalat on the date of passing of the award and basing on a joint memo filed by both the parties, the above award came to be passed. According to him, the presence of the petitioner was recorded in the award, and, he cannot now turn around and say that he was not present on the date of passing of the award. 5. Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Legal Services Authority, strongly opposed the same, stating that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches alone. In other words, according to him, though the award was passed in the year 2015, the present writ petition came to be filed challenging the award in the year 2020 and no reasons are assigned for the delay in filing the writ petition. He further submits that since the plea of fraud is alleged, which is filled with disputed factual aspects, this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot decide the issue. 6. The point that arises for consideration is whether the relief claimed by the petitioner can be granted in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India? 7. As seen from the record an award came to be passed on 10.10.2015. The said award was signed by the petitioner and the 3rd respondent which was attested by their counsel. In the body of the award, it was specifically stated that the said application is coming up before the Lok Adalat in the presence of the petitioner/K. Bhagya Lakshmi and the respondent/K.V. Ramana Reddy and Sri M. Narayana Reddy, advocate for the petitioner and Sri Md. Aslam Ahmed, Advocate for the respondent therein. In the body of the award, it was specifically stated that the said application is coming up before the Lok Adalat in the presence of the petitioner/K. Bhagya Lakshmi and the respondent/K.V. Ramana Reddy and Sri M. Narayana Reddy, advocate for the petitioner and Sri Md. Aslam Ahmed, Advocate for the respondent therein. Infact, the said M. Narayana Reddy was also made as a party to these proceedings. In his affidavit filed before this Court, seeking permission to argue the case in-person, categorically stated that on that day, the petitioner and the respondent were present before the Court. Be that as it may, in the award passed, it has been categorically stated that the matter has been referred to Lok Adalat and at the request of both the parties, it is coming up for settlement in the presence of the petitioner, respondent and their counsel. The names of the parties and their counsel are also mentioned in the award. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the very presence of the petitioner and signing of the award, but the material on record, more particularly, the award passed, which we referred to earlier and the letter addressed by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent indicate the presence of the petitioner before the Lok Adalat on that day. 8. In order to test the same, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Train ticket said to have been obtained from akbartravelsonline.com. The said ticket which is at page no. 20 of the paper booklet, shows the Train number as 17252-Guntur-Kachiguda Express; date of journey on 10.10.2015; date of boarding on 10.10.2015; and scheduled arrival on 11.10.2015 at 03.30. As stated earlier, the case of the petitioner is that on the date of passing of the award, he was in train travelling to Kurnool and was never present before the Lok Adalat, as he arrived in Kurnool at 3.30 on 11.10.2015. But, Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent along with his counter placed on record the train time table issued by the concerned authority which shows that the Train No. 17252 relates to train running between Kachiguda and Guntur and not between Guntur and Kachiguda, as stated in the affidavit. But, Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent along with his counter placed on record the train time table issued by the concerned authority which shows that the Train No. 17252 relates to train running between Kachiguda and Guntur and not between Guntur and Kachiguda, as stated in the affidavit. Further, the train reaches Kachiguda at 9.20 P.M. in the night and Guntur at 12.25 P.M. Whereas the train which starts from Guntur and goes to Kachiguda is Train No. 17251, which leaves Guntur at 5.30 P.M. and reaches Kachiguda at 7.15 A.M. In the course of its journey, it touches Kurnool at 2.18 A.M. Therefore, the averment in the affidavit that he was in train on that day, travelling to Kurnool on some other work, prima-facie may not be correct and the same requires to be established by adducing evidence. Therefore, the plea of fraud as alleged by the petitioner is filled with many disputed factual aspects which require to be established before an appropriate forum. 9. It is no doubt true that in exceptional cases a writ petition would lie under Articles 226 or 227 of Constitution of India, provided there is clinching, unequivocally proven facts, on the basis of the material placed before the Court. When the issue of fraud involves disputed factual aspects, it may not be permissible for this Court to entertain a writ and the remedy in our view would be by way of filing a suit for declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act [Batchu Subba Lakshmi and Others vs. Sannidhi Srinivasulu, 2010 (1) ALT 483 ]. 10. In Chaluvadi Murali Krishna and Another vs. District Legal Services Authority, Prakasam District, Ongole, Rep. by 1st Addl. District Judge-cum-Presiding Judge, Lok Adalat and Others, 2013 (2) ALT 10 wherein the Division Bench of the Combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh held, as under: “10.......There may be yet another situation where an award may have been obtained by connivance, defeating the rights of a third party, in such cases also a writ would lie, provided however, there is prima-facie, evidence of collusion, fraud and misrepresentation. Even in such cases, if the question involves complicating issues requiring evidence, a writ cannot be an appropriate remedy.......” 11. Having regard to the legal principles enunciated above, we see no grounds to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition. Even in such cases, if the question involves complicating issues requiring evidence, a writ cannot be an appropriate remedy.......” 11. Having regard to the legal principles enunciated above, we see no grounds to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is always open for the petitioner to approach Civil Court by filing an appropriate suit, seeking the relief claimed in the present writ petition, if entitled to in which event the same shall be dealt with, in accordance with law. 13. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.