1 2025:CGHC:33930-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3707 of 2025 M/s Communication System Through Its Propritor Sapavath Nagulu, Aged About- 44 Years, S/o- Shri Sapavath, Situated At - Patparia Near Punjab Garden, Ambikapur, Surguja, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department School Education Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Bilaspur (Tribal And Scheduled Caste Development Department), District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Assistant Commissioner (Tribal And Scheduled Caste Development Department) Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited Through Its Chief General Manager (Marketing), Office At- 1st Floor, Udhyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. - 01, Telibandha, Raipur- 492006 (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.07.18 18:48:53 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajat Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.4 as well as Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3/State. 2. The present petition has been preferred praying for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, order or commands, commanding and directing the respondents to place the complete record related with the case of the petitioner for just and proper decision of the case. or 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a wriť in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, order commands, commanding respondent no. 02 and 03 to clear the admissible amount of Rupees 03,50,430/- + GST with immediate effect and provide interest as per Serial No. 13 of rate contract if any delay occurs. 10.3 Any other relief, That, this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, order commands, commanding and directing the respondents which the Hon'ble Court 3 deems fit and or proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WPC No.2870/2025 (M/s Sai Info Services vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) vide order dated 16.06.2025, observing as follows : “12. 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. 13. In the instant case, the relief 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. 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 4 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).” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WPC No.2870/2025, this petition may also be dismissed in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this petition is identical to WPC No.2870 of 2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WPC No.2870 of 2025. 5. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed in terms of the order dated 16.06.2025 passed in WPC No.2870 of 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet