HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 10896 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief: Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, particularly respondent Nos. 2 and 3, to take appropriate steps to replace/shift the soak pit/toilet chamber related to the school toilet, by considering the petitioner’s grievance within a stipulated period of time. 1. 3. This Court, vide order dated 15.04.2025, had passed the following directions: Mr. Ayaj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that a soak pit/toilet chamber was constructed in the school without following norms, which has affected his client’s house adjacent to the school. On complaint, the District Basic Education Officer (respondent No. 3) issued a notice on 05.04.2024 to the Head Master (respondent No. 5). No action has been taken by the school or the administration. He sought interference. 1. Mr. Raj Mohan Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appeared on behalf of State-respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. Notice along with the order was directed to respondent Nos. 3 to 5 by Registered/Speed Post with A.D., petitioner to provide requisite details. 3. Respondents were directed to respond to the petitioner’s allegations 4. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Pandey, Jaideep Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Rajendra Kumar Soni @ Rajjan Soni .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) regarding inaction in respect of the soak pit constructed without following norms, and to provide written instructions on the action taken or proposed. Matter was listed as fresh on 12.05.2025. 5. 4. Shri Krishna Dutt Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, has filed an affidavit along with a report, which indicates that the soak pit/toilet constructed by respondent No. 5 is not on the land of the petitioner. The question as to whether the construction took place on the petitioner’s land or the school’s land involves disputed question of facts, which can be determined merely on the basis of pleadings and the evidence on record. 5. Since the present writ petition involves disputed questions of fact, it is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available under law. September 24, 2025 Sumaira WRIC No. 10896 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad