$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 12168/2023 M/S SUDESH REFRIGERATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv. versus THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(E) CPWD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Mr. Chetanya Puri, Ms. Vidhi Gupta, Mr. Kushagra Malik, Mr. Abhay Verma, Advs. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 23.04.2026 1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs: “(a) to issue writ of mandamus to the respondent thereby directing him to provide books of account and all the related documents viz. attendance register of the site, biometric attendance details (if applicable), complaint book, salary-sheets, Copy of site order book, contractor's Inventory for handing over & taken over the site / work 40/EE(E)/Dr.RML&SSK- regarding agreement HED/2020-21 to the petitioner / firm so that the firm can take appropriate steps as per rule of contract. (b) any other or appropriate order or directions that deem fit in the circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was awarded a contract for the maintenance of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment. The petitioner claims that the Respondent has not sufficiently cleared the dues of the petitioner. 3. It appears that the petitioner has also filed some RTI applications, and This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2026 at 13:24:19 the documents sought therein have since been supplied by the respondent. The petitioner, however, submits that his grievance still subsists. 4. Per contra, the respondent submits that the matter has already been settled. In any case, the Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer made in the instant writ petition. The petitioner has already availed his rights under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”). If the grievance of the petitioner subsists, he may take appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The writ jurisdiction may not normally be invoked to seek the recovery of disputed amount. As such, there is no justification to entertain the instant petition by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. The petition stands dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J APRIL 23, 2026/SH This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2026 at 13:24:19