1 2025:CGHC:27956-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3160 of 2025 M/s K.K. Mazumdar, Through Its Proprietor Pradeep Kumar Mazumdar, Lolita Niwas, Subhash Chowk Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 495677 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Public Work, Nirman Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Engineer In Chief P.W.D. Nirman Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Superintending Engineer P.W.D. Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The Executive Engineer P.W.D. Korba Division, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, A.G. and Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 26.06.2025 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.06.27 13:10:28 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General along with Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for respondents / State. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): “10.1) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to release the outstanding payment of Rs 8,63,899/- as certified by the respondent authorities in the Measurement Book, immediately as the same is already stands certified by the respondent authorities. 10.2) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue direction to the authorities to pay the interest on the outstanding amount, in the interest of Justice. 10.3) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems Fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 0.4) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner” 3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is the proprietorship firm, engaged in the business of the construction work. The petitioner was awarded with the work of "Construction work of additional room I/C electrification with W.S.S.F at Government P.G. College at Korba Chhattisgarh", as per the scope of work, petitioner has to Construct Additional Room at Government PG College Korba with electrification work. The estimated amount of work was Rs. 129.85 lakhs and the agreement value of the same was Rs.119.46 lakhs. The petitioner 3 was awarded the said work on 18.05.2022, vide work order dated 18.05.2022. The petitioner has completed the entire work including the electrification work on 25.06.2023, and the payment to the tune of Rs. 117.57 was received. The original estimate amount of work was Rs 128.85 lakhs, however during the execution of work due to certain modifications in the scheduled quantity, the revised estimate on account of revised electrification work was sanctioned 08.08.2023. Based on the revised estimate, the petitioner was asked to carry out the additional work and the petitioner has executed the same on the basis of revised estimate being sanctioned by the respondent authorities as stated above. The additional work of the petitioner also got completed on 25.06.2023, and after completion of entire work, the amount of Security Deposit to the tune of Rs. 5,87,860/-, Performance Guarantee to the tune of Rs. 5,87,860/- and earnest money to the tune Rs. 97,388/- was released by the respondent authorities, however the amount for electrification work done to the tune of Rs. 8,63,899/- is withheld illegally by the respondent authorities. The petitioner has got the entire amount as stated in the original tender based on original sanction, however the respondent authorities have still withheld the payment to the tune of Rs. 8,63,899/-, of the additional work that was carried out by the petitioner after the sanctioning of revised estimate and preparing the bill of the same, for the reason best known to them. The petitioner has filed various representations before the authorities 4 on different dates i.e. 24.07.2024, 27.08.2024, 05.11.2024 and most recently on 26.05.2025, where he has specifically stated that the outstanding amount of work of electrification is pending with the respondent department. However no positive response was received from respondent authorities, therefore petitioner was left with no other option but to file this present petition seeking a direction against the respondent authorities for the release of the amount. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has got the entire amount as stated in the original tender based on original sanction, however the respondent authorities have still withheld the payment to the tune of Rs. 8,63,899/-, of the additional work that was carried out by the petitioner after the sanctioning of revised estimate and preparing the bill of the same, for the reason best known to them. Further, this outstanding amount had been Illegally retained and in spite of several reminder the said amount have not been released. This Illegal Retention of/ Holding of the bill of revised electrification is duly and certified by Engineer In-charge amounts to unjust enrichment for which the Department/Respondent Authorities is liable to pay interest on the amount withheld unjustly. The in action of Respondent Authorities again and not releasing the undisputed amount, relates to violation of contractual obligation between the parties and also violates the Provision of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India, as the same amounts to creating hindrances 5 in the smooth flow of business 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents / State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. As such, the present writ petition as framed and filed is not maintainable. 6. We have learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ petition. 7. 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. 8. 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 6 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 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 7 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) 9.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 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 8 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) 10. 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." 11. 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 9 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." 12. 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 10 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." (emphasis supplied) 13. 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. 14. From perusal of the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to release the outstanding amount of Rs.8,63,899/-, as certified by the respondent authorities in the measurement Book. 15. In the instant case, the relief of admitted and undisputed amount 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. 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 11 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 Manpreet