1 2025:CGHC:22557-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2508 of 2025 Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal A Proprietorship Firm Having Its Office At Ludeg, Tehsil - Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh Through Its Sole Proprietor Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal S/o Late Shri Rajendra Prasad Agrawal, Aged About 53 Years, R/o A/203, Om City, Station Road Champa, District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Engineer-In-Chief Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Capitol Complex, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Engineer C.G. Pwd Bridge Construction Zone Raipur Nirman Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Capitol Complex, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. The Superintending Engineer C.G. Pwd Bridge Construction Circle Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5. Executive Engineer C.G. Pwd Bridge Construction Division, Raigarh Chhattisgarh 6. Sub-Divisional Officer Pwd Bridge Construction, Sub-Division No. 2, Raigarh Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Devendra Patel, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.06.13 10:59:22 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 09.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Devendra Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner available in the office of the respondents, for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to make payment of Running Bills of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 76 lakhs without any further delay within a stipulated period of time. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10.4 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant cost of the petition to the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is a sole proprietorship firm a person entitled for all constitutional and legal 3 rights endowed by the Suprema Lex i.e. Constitution of India and the laws of this country. He further submits that the petitioner herein has been executing various contracts with government bodies and also in the respondent Public Works Department and is duly registered as A-Class contractor. The petitioner specializes in bridge construction work. The instant petition is being filed by the petitioner through Shri Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal who is Sole Proprietor of the firm. The respondents herein are State Government of Chhattisgarh and its officials and authorities, who all are 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, therefore amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein was awarded a contract for "Construction of HL Bridge Approach Road, Across Kinkari Nalla on Naramkela- Badenawapara Road". In this respect a work order dated 24.12.2021 was issued and an agreement being agreement No. 20/2021-2022 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent-department. The work was to be completed within 13 months i.e. till 22.01.2023 and the agreemental value was rupees 9.63 crores. He also submits that soon after the execution of the agreement, the petitioner herein commenced its work of construction of the bridge at the initial stage itself on account of various issues the work at the site was not possible smoothly. However, despite best efforts on account of various reasons the work under the contract was delayed, and therefore, the respondents granted the 1st Extension of Time to the petitioner from 23.01.2023 to 23.06.2023 without any penalty. Thereafter, the 2nd Extension of Time was granted to the petitioner from 01.07.2023 to 31.01.2024 with penalty. Finally, the 3rd 4 Extension of Time was granted to the petitioner with effect from 01.02.2024 to 31.03.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that although the petitioner has been executing the work under the contract, however, since June 2023 payments are pending to be made to the petitioner despite execution of work of more than Rs. 1.10 Crore. The petitioner has been approaching the respondents in this respect time and again. He also stated that the petitioner has been writing various letters to the respondents in respect of payment of Bills. Recently, the petitioner herein had submitted a letter dated 24.01.2025 whereby the petitioner had pointed out regarding non-payment for works executed since June, 2023 and had requested the respondents for immediate payment of pending bills so as to ensure smooth execution of the works on site. He would submit that acting on the same by a letter dated 04.02.2025, the respondent No. 5 directed the respondent No. 6 to immediately submit the Bills of the petitioner for payment. 6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the time period of the contract was to expire on 31.03.2025, the petitioner filed an application on 28.03.2025 for extension of time before the respondents which is pending consideration before the respondents. He also contended that finally after the letter dated 24.01.2025, the respondents No. 6 to 3 have recommended the Bills of the petitioner for payment before the respondent No. 2. In the instant case, the petitioner has already completed 70% of the work. He further submits that as per the online information available undisputedly the respondents have recommended payment of about Rs. 76 lakhs of the petitioner before the 5 respondent No. 2 since March, 2025. However, till date no payments have been made and the petitioner herein has been made to run from pillar to post without any result. He further contended that the petitioner has been diligently executing the work. The contract executed between the parties clearly provide for timely payment of Running Bills in order to ensure proper execution of the work. However, contrary to the contract terms, payments have been withheld till date. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on account of withholding of Running Bills the petitioner is suffering serious financial problems and the work of the petitioner is also getting hampered as regular payments of labourers and suppliers are being adversely affected. Further, the credibility and credit reputation of the petitioner with his bankers is also getting deteriorated. The petitioner is facing acute financial crisis and is unable to discharge debts and make payments in respect of the work executed on respondent's site. Therefore, the present petition has been filed before this Court. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the writ petitions as framed and filed are not maintainable as the disputed question of facts cannot be adjudicated in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. We have learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ petitions. 10. It is settled law that the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when it raises 6 disputed question of facts. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Grid Corpornation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) & Others v. Sukamani Das (Smt.) & Another, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 298 was dealing with the question of whether the High Court had made an error in entertaining a writ petition filed seeking compensation for the death of a person due to electrocution, which had allegedly been caused due to the negligence of the authorities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case observed as under: “6. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petitions even though they were not fit cases for exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court went wrong in proceeding on the basis that as the deaths had taken place because of electrocution as a result of the deceased coming into contact with snapped live wires of the electric transmission lines of the appellants, that "admittedly/prima facie amounted to negligence on the part of the appellants". The High Court failed to appreciate that all these cases were actions in tort and negligence was required to be established firstly by the claimants. The mere fact that the wire of the electric transmission line belonging to Appellant 1 had snapped and the deceased had come in contact with it and had died was not by itself sufficient for awarding compensation. It also required to be examined whether the wire had snapped as a result of any negligence of the appellants and under which circumstances the deceased had come in contact with the wire. In view of the specific defences raised by the appellants in each of these cases they deserved an opportunity to prove 7 that proper care and precautions were taken in maintaining the transmission lines and yet the wires had snapped because of circumstances beyond their control or unauthorised intervention of third parties or that the deceased had not died in the manner stated by the petitioners. These questions could not have been decided properly on the basis of affidavits only. It is the settled legal position that where disputed questions of facts are involved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy. The High Court has not and could not have held that the disputes in these cases were raised for the sake of raising them and that there was no substance therein. The High Court should have directed the writ petitioners to approach the civil court as it was done in OJC No. 5229 of 1995." (emphasis supplied) 12. The aforesaid judgment has been relied/ reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.P.S. Rathore v. State of Haryana & Others, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 1 wherein it observed as follows: “16. In Chairman, Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) v. Sukamani Das [(1999) 7 SCC 298] the question which arose for consideration was, can the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution award compensation for death caused due to electrocution on account of negligence, when the liability was emphatically denied on the ground that the death had not occurred as a result of negligence, but because of an act of God or of acts of some other persons. The Court held that it is the settled legal position that where disputed questions of facts are involved, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy. Therefore, questions as to whether death occurred due to negligence or due to act of God or of some third person 8 could not be decided properly on the basis of affidavits only, but should be decided by the civil court after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties. In T.N. Electricity Board v. Sumathi [(2000) 4 SCC 543] it was held that when a disputed question of fact arises and there is clear denial of any tortious liability, remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution may not be proper. The Court carved out exception to this general rule by observing that, it should not be understood that in every case of tortious liability, recourse must be had to a suit. When there is negligence on the face of it and infringement of Article 21 is there, it cannot be said that there will be any bar to proceed under Article 226 of the Constitution." (emphasis supplied) 13. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 562 has held as under: “26. It is well settled that the High Court exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not adjudicate hotly disputed questions of facts. It is not for the High Court to make a comparative assessment of conflicting technical reports and decide which one is acceptable." 14. Subsequently, in Union of India vs. Puna Hinda, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 690, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed: “24. Therefore, the dispute could not be raised by way of a writ petition on the disputed questions of fact. Though, the jurisdiction of the High Court is wide but in respect of pure contractual matters in the field of private law, having no statutory flavour, are better adjudicated upon by the forum agreed to by the parties. The dispute as to whether the amount is payable or not and/or how 9 much amount is payable are disputed questions of facts. There is no admission on the part of the appellants to infer that the amount stands crystallised. Therefore, in the absence of any acceptance of joint survey report by the competent authority, no right would accrue to the writ petitioner only because measurements cannot be undertaken after passage of time. Maybe, the resurvey cannot take place but the measurement books of the work executed from time to time would form a reasonable basis for assessing the amount due and payable to the writ petitioner, but such process could be undertaken only by the agreed forum i.e. arbitration and not by the writ court as it does not have the expertise in respect of measurements or construction of roads.” 15. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India (P) Ltd., reported in (2023) 2 SCC 703, while dealing with the issue of exercise of writ jurisdiction by a Court in matters arising out of a contract, has stated: “82.7. The existence of an alternate remedy, is, undoubtedly, a matter to be borne in mind in declining relief in a writ petition in a contractual matter. Again, the question as to whether the writ petitioner must be told off the gates, would depend upon the nature of the claim and relief sought by the petitioner, the questions, which would have to be decided, and, most importantly, whether there are disputed questions of fact, resolution of which is necessary, as an indispensable prelude to the grant of the relief sought. Undoubtedly, while there is no prohibition, in the writ court even deciding disputed questions of fact, particularly when the dispute surrounds demystifying of documents only, the Court may relegate the party to the remedy by way of a civil 10 suit.” (emphasis supplied) 16. A reading of the aforesaid judgments makes it clear that it is well settled proposition of law that when there are disputed question of facts involved in a case, the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been held that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be proper. 17. In the present cases, the relief of compensations sought by the petitioner is contingent upon the resolution of the disputed question of facts raised, and these questions cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid, it would not be appropriate for this Court to entertain the present writ petitions as there are disputed questions of fact involved. 18. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, further considering the disputed questions of law involved in these writ petitions, the reliefs sought by the petitioner and in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments (supra), we do not find any good ground to entertain these writ petitions. 19. Accordingly, the present writ petitions being devoid of merit are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to other alternate remedies available to him under the law. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan