“12. An identical legal position ensures within this country and High Courts have repeatedly held that the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and not obligatory without being exhaustive, it is settled law that the court would not ordinarily issue a writ in favour of a person, who has (i) an adequate alternative remedy, (ii) who is guilty of delay which is unexplained, (iii) who is guilty of conduct disentitling him to relief, (iv) where the interest of justice do not require that relief should be granted, (v) where the petitioner raises a disputed question of fact, (vi) where the grant of writ would be futile, and (vii) where the impugned law has not come into force. It would follow from the above that the grant or refusal of a writ is within the judicial discretion of the court and that indeed is the line which divides the extra ordinary remedy from the ordinary one by way of a civil suit.” (emphasis supplied).