1 2025:CGHC:23315-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2789 of 2025 M/s Hariom Udyog Through Proprietor Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma, S/o Lt. Ramchandra Sharma, Aged About 57 Years, R/o H. No. 11/16/4, Gurudwara Road, Ward No. 16, Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Business Address- Kanya Vivah Bhawan, Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal And Schedule Caste Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal And Schedule Caste Development Department, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Raigarh District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12/06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondents. 2 2. The petitioner, by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks for the following relief(s): “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to issue writ/order/direction to the respondent authority particularly to the respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner and to act in accordance with law, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to issue writ/ order/ direction for immediately payment of all the dues and clear all the bills and vouchers, in the larger interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is a small industry engaged in the work of manufacturing and supply of furniture and related articles. The petitioner industry applied for the tender issued by the respondent No.2 for purchase of furniture (Angle Iron Cot) in which the petitioner industry succeeded and on 28.02.2023 the petitioner received the supply order for supplying the Angle Iron Cot worth or Rs.9,49,787/- from the respondent department through CSIDC online portal vide supply order No.323022800369. Subsequently the petitioner industry supplied the same to the respondent No.2 as per their specifications. The inspection was conducted to insure whether the article supplied is as per the tender specifications or not. The inspection was conducted on 15-03-2023 where the articles were found perfect as per the specifications of the tender, thereafter the respondent No.2 issued the satisfaction certificate in favor of the petitioner industry. The petitioner sent the bills and vouchers to the respondent No.2 for the payment of the above-mentioned supplies made, but the same was not paid. 3 4. Mr. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made various representations to the authorities requesting for payment but the same have not been considered as a result of which he is unable to continue with his small industry as the petitioner is unable to pay his liabilities and expenses and is further not able to pay the salaries and wages to its employees and due to which the industry is at the verge of collapse. The supply of the articles was made way back in the 2023, but till date the bills and vouchers were not paid which restrains the petitioner in smooth running of his business and industry and which is infringement of his fundamental rights which is envisaged him under the Constitution of India. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits that this petition is not maintainable as it is purely a civil dispute and the petitioner has efficacious remedy of filing civil suit before the jurisdictional civil court for settlement of the dispute relating to payment for the supplies made by the petitioner. In a case of the present nature involving disputed questions of facts, no writ petition would lie for a money claim which automatically becomes disputed also. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. The relationship between the parties is contractual in nature as admittedly the supplies were made by the petitioner pursuant to a tender floated by the respondent authorities. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in contractual matters has to be confined to errors in the decision making process. The claim of the petitioner for arrears of bills submitted by him, cannot be acceded to in the writ jurisdiction except for what may be called admitted dues as no writ petition would lie for a 4 money claim. Further, the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy of taking recourse to competent jurisdictional civil court for realisation of the money for the supplies made by him which the petitioner has not availed. 8. 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. 9. 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 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 5 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 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." 10.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 6 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." 11. 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." 12. 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 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 7 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." 13. 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 civil suit." 14. 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. 15. From perusal of the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner has 8 prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to release the payment for the supplies made by it to the respondent Department. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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 Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.06.13 11:18:55 +0530