1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2537 of 2018 1 - Astitva Mahila Samiti Near Satbahaniya Mandir Deorikhurd, Tahsil Bilha, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Through The President Smt. Puja Verma W/o Sanjiv Kumar Verma, Aged About 34 Years, R/o C/o M.P. Singh, Ganesh Chowk, Near Sai Mandir, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Additional Collector Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgrah., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The City Magistrate Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Jigyasha Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 09/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the memo dated 27-08-2018 issued by the Respondent No. 2, whereby the parking and canteen run by the petitioner at New Composite Building Campus, Bilaspur, ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.07.15 19:53:33 +0530 2 is directed to be closed and a recovery of Rs. 2,43,600/- is ordered towards arrears of rent of the contract amount. The petitioner prayed for the following reliefs in his writ petition:- 10.1 The Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 27.08.2018 issued by the respondent no. 2 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 and 3 to open the premises i.e. canteen of Composite Building Bilaspur, in the ends of justice. 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, be passed in favour of the petitioners along with costs of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1973, having the Registration No. 27688. Vide order dated 20-10-2015, the petitioner was awarded a contract to run the vehicle parking and canteen at New Composite Building Campus, Bilaspur, for the period from the execution of the agreement up to 31-03-2016. The cost of the work order was Rs. 18,400/- per month for parking, Rs. 13,600/- per month for canteen and Rs. 10,800/- per month for cleaning of the premises. Certain terms and conditions have also been fixed under the work order dated 20-10-2016. The period of the work contract may be extended for a further period of one year, if the work of the petitioner is found satisfactory. The terms of the work of the petitioner were extended from the period of 01-04-2017 to 31-03-2018. Since the petitioner fails to pay the monthly amount under the terms of the work order, a notice was issued to him for recovery of arrears of Rs. 2,43,600/- on 23-08-2018 and directed to deposit the same within 03 days and on 27-08-2018, the impugned order of recovery and stopping of the canteen and Parking has been passed. She would further submit that as per clause 3 of the terms and conditions of the contract, the Respondent No. 2 was required to give one month’s prior notice to the petitioner before issuing the impugned memo. The petitioner has deposited the amount of Rs. 1,37,000/- to the respondents, but the same was 3 refused to accept by them. Respondent No. 2 arbitrarily assessed the arrears amount, which is incorrect and not recoverable from the petitioner. Had the petitioner been noticed and sufficient opportunity been provided, she would have disclosed her payments made to the Respondents. Since there is no fault on the part of the petitioner, there was no reason for the closure of the canteen and parking, which was awarded to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned memo dated 27-08-2018 is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/state submits that the work order was allotted to the petitioner in the year 2017, which was valid up to 31-03-2018, and now the period of the work order is over. In the work order dated 03-05-2017, which was for the period between 01-04-2017 to 31- 03-2018, there was a specific condition about the payment of the amount under the work order. It was also the condition that the arrears of Rs. 1,33,200/- should be paid in four equal instalments within four months. The condition No. 5 clearly provides that if, the petitioner fails to deposit the amount, the order dated 03-05-2017 would be deemed to be cancelled. The petitioner has not deposited the said amount despite notices issued to them on 07-09-2016, 17-11-2016, 06-03-2017 and 06-07-2017. She cannot claim the running of the canteen and parking as a matter of right. Under the work contract, the petitioner has to obey the conditions and pay the monthly rent/amount fixed in the work order. A huge amount was in arrears, and she has not paid the said amount despite notice given to her. Under the compelling reasons, the impugned memo dated 27-08-2018 was issued for the recovery of the outstanding amount under the work contract and stopped the work of the petitioner. It is a pure contractual matter, and a writ petition is not maintainable. There are various factual issues in the case, and the petitioner may settle the dispute by an appropriate civil proceeding. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. From the pleading and documents annexed with the petition, it is revealed that the dispute is a contractual dispute, and the arrears of money are involved in the case. Whether the terms and conditions of the contract are obeyed or not, and the assessment of arrears towards the work contract are factual disputes which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction, particularly when there is no admitted claim of the parties. Even if it is found that the work order of the petitioner was wrongly terminated, the petitioner may claim compensation. 6. In the matter of “National Highways Authority of India v. Ganga Enterprises and Another”, 2003 (7) SCC 410, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para 6 that:- “6. It is settled law that disputes relating to contracts cannot be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been so held in the cases of Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil, State of U.P. v. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd.2 and Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajai Pal Singh. This is settled law. The dispute in this case was regarding the terms of offer. They were thus contractual disputes in respect of which a writ court was not the proper forum. Mr Dave, however, relied upon the cases of Verigamto Naveen v. Govt. of A.P.4 and Harminder Singh Arora v. Union of India. These, however, are cases where the writ court was enforcing a statutory right or duty. These cases do not lay down that a writ court can interfere in a matter of contract only. Thus on the ground of maintainability the petition should have been dismissed.” 7. Further, in the matter of “Joshi Technologies International Inc v. Union of India and Ors.”, 2015 (7) SCC 728, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 69 that:- 69. The position thus summarized in the aforesaid principles has to be understood in the context of discussion that preceded which we have pointed out above. As per this, no doubt, there is no absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition even in contractual matters or where there are disputed questions of fact or even when monetary claim is 5 raised. At the same time, discretion lies with the High Court which under certain circumstances, can refuse to exercise. It also follows that under the following circumstances, 'normally', the Court would not exercise such a discretion: 69.1. The Court may not examine the issue unless the action has some public law character attached to it. 69.2. Whenever a particular mode of settlement of dispute is provided in the contract, the High Court would refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and relegate the party to the said made of settlement, particularly when settlement of disputes is to be resorted to through the means of arbitration. 69.3 If there are very serious disputed questions of fact which are of complex nature and require oral evidence for their determination. 69.4 Money claims per se particularly arising out of contractual obligations are normally not to be entertained except in exceptional circumstances.” 8. In view of the above and settled legal position and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no exceptional case for interference is made out by the petitioner, and the writ petition is liable to be and hereby dismissed. 9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Sd/- Sd/-SdSd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok