1 2025:CGHC:23754-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2849 of 2025 1 - M/s Laxmi Enterprises Through Its Partner Mr. Prakash Soni S/o Shri Laxminarayan Soni Aged About 37 Yeras R/o Professor Colony, Sector - 03, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - N.M.D.C. Limited Iron And Steel Plant, Through General Manager (Materials Management And Marketing ) Post Nagarnar, District - Bastar, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh 2 - M/s Mecon Limited Through Chief General Manager NISP Nagarnar, District - Bastar Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh 3 – DGM (Civil) EIC NSIP, Nagarnar, NMDC Iron And Steel Plant, Nagarnar, Jagdalpur (Bastar ), Chhattisgarh 4 - Sinocalci (India) Technology Private Ltd. Through Managing Director, Add - 61B Palm Avenue Ground Floor, Kolkatta (West Bengal ) 700019 ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate through VC and Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.06.13 19:19:51 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 13.06.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition for the following reliefs:- i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present writ petition. ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction directing the Respondents to forthwith release the outstanding dues of the Petitioner towards completed civil works amounting to Rs. 35,69,064.00 (Rupees Thirty-Five Lakhs Sixty-Nine Thousand Sixty-Four Only), as per Invoice No. 193 dated 30.10.2020; iii. That, the Hon'ble Court may direct Respondents to pay interest @18% per annum on the above principal amount from the date of invoice, i.e., 30.10.2020, till 30.04.2025, amounting to Rs. 29,10,812.00 (Rupees Twenty-Nine Lakhs Ten Thousand Eight Hundred Twelve Only), calculated as follows: Rs. 35,69,064 x 18% per annum x 4.5 years = Rs.29,10,812 (Total outstanding dues with interest as on 30.04.2025: Rs. 35,69,064 + Rs. 29,10,812 = Rs. 64,79,876) iv. That, the Hon'ble Court may direct Respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 30,29,957.00 (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Twenty-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty-Seven Only) towards lease charges for materials belonging to the 3 Petitioner (jack, clamp, base jack, office container, etc.) retained at Respondents' NISP premises since the termination of contract; v. That, the Hon'ble Court may direct the Respondents to release the Petitioner's aforesaid materials/property from their premises and issue necessary outpass forthwith; vi. Award costs of the present petition in favor of the Petitioner; vii. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the petitioner seeks issuance of appropriate directions against the Respondent authorities for the release of outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 35,69,064.00 along with accrued interest @18% per annum, totaling Rs. 64,79,876.00, for civil construction work duly executed by the Petitioner as a sub-contractor of Sinocalci (India) Pvt. Ltd. under NMDC's LDCP Project at Nagarnar, Chhattisgarh and further for lease charges due upon the Respondents as they haven't made suitable arrangements to take the Petitioner his materials/property kept at the premises of the Respondent, which amounts to 30,29,957/-. Despite repeated representations, recommendations by MECON Ltd., and legal notice, the Respondents have arbitrarily denied payment, violating the Petitioner's constitutional and contractual rights. Thus, the present writ petition. 4 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the writ petition as framed and filed is not maintainable as the disputed question of facts cannot be adjudicated in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. We have learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 5. It is settled law that the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when it raises disputed question of facts. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Grid Corpornation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and others v. Sukamani Das (Smt.) and another, (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 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 5 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 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 6 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) 7. The aforesaid judgment has been relied/ reiterated by the Supreme Court in S.P.S. Rathore v. State of Haryana and others, (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 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 7 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) 8. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam, 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." 9. Subsequently, in Union of India Vs. Puna Hinda, (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 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 8 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." 10. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India (P) Ltd., (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 9 civil suit." (emphasis supplied) 11. 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. 12. From perusal of the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to provide compensation of the work already executed by him with commercial interest @ 18% per annum and the raw material which was damaged and later was stolen amounting of Rs. 8,800,000/- with commercial interest @ 18% per annum and appropriate compensation of the material subjected to theft with commercial interest @ 18% per annum. The petitioner has also prayed for damages and compensation for unreasonable delay in issuing compensation and reissuing new tender. 13. In the instant case, the relief of damages and compensation 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 instant writ petition as there are disputed questions of fact involved. 10 14. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, further considering the disputed questions of law involved in this writ petition, the relief sought by the petitioner and in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments (supra), we do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is 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 S. Bhilwar/ Jyoti