full-fledged trial/enquiry. The same principle also extends to matters involving mixed questions of fact and law. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be converted into a quasi-judicial proceeding or a suit to resolve the instant factual controversies. And, in general, disputed or complex question of fact is not investigated into in a writ petition of this nature. Hence, in the considered view of this Court, there is no need to resolve the complex factual controversies involved in this writ petition and it is for the appropriate forum to resolve the issues, which are complex factual issues. Therefore, it is appropriate to leave the controversy to be resolved in an appropriate proceeding by an appropriate forum. In that view of the matter, it is for the petitioner to seek the remedy, which the law permits, from an appropriate forum. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is not proper to record any findings by deeply examining the complex facts, as the issues being sought to be raised are to be decided by a competent forum, after taking into consideration the evidence, which is required for resolving the dispute, provided the party/parties interested would approach the competent forum for appropriate remedies, which he/they desire to seek.
