1 WPC No. 3652 of 2025 2025:CGHC:32835-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3652 of 2025 Om Prakash Dewangan S/o Har Prasad Dewangan Aged About 58 Years Civil Contractor, Nagar Panchayat, Bhatgaon, Tahsil- Bhatgaon, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Baloda Bazar District- Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - The Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department, Bhatgaon, Tahsil- Bhatgaon, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 3 - The Executive Engineer, Public Work Department, Division- Baloda Bazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) Present District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Mr. Prafulla Bharat, Advocate General alongwith Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. AG SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.07.16 10:48:03 +0530 2 WPC No. 3652 of 2025 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anand Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafulla Bharat, learned Advocate General alongwith Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for the respondents/ State. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 May, this Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 03 to release the undisputed and admitted payment of final recommended bill of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 10.83 lacs. to the petitioner along with the suitable interest. 10.2 May, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to consider and decide the petitioner's representation which is for his approved outcome dues against the respondents within a stipulated time. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 3. The facts of the case in brief is that with respect to the construction work of 02 Additional Rooms at the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Dhobani Block of Bilaigarh, under Sub-Division Bilaigarh, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District - Baloda 3 WPC No. 3652 of 2025 Bazar (C.G.) (present District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh), the tender submitted by the petitioner has been approved at the rate of 17.17% less on behalf of of the Governor of Chhattisgarh vide memo No. 4883/NIT No. 12/SAC/2020-21/B.Ba, dated 04.12.2020, SOR for the building work (civil) issued by EinC PWD Chhattisgarh W.e.f. 01.01.2015 amended on 04.05.2018. Under the contract number 178/DL/2020-21 of P.W.D, Baloda Bazar, completed the work by the petitioner on 11.10.2021. The concerned department after due verification of work done by the petitioner, issued the work completion certificate in favor of the petitioner on 11.10.2021, which has been deliberately and illegally withheld and kept in abeyance by the respondents in the name and garb of non availability of funds. Even though the petitioner made a representation before the authority for releasing the undisputed dues however, with regard to the same, no action has been taken till date. As such, the entire act of the respondents being an instrument of the state: is not only arbitrary, unreasonable, vexatious, without any application of mind, but also utter violation of the doctrine of principle of Natural Justice. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action on the part of the respondent department caused mental agony and financial hardship to the petitioner and the respondent department has not made any attempt in solving the hindrance. 4 WPC No. 3652 of 2025 He would submit that despite submitting representation, petitioner has not been received any single penny of amount but the respondent authority has not taken any action towards the issue related to the petitioner, knowing that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner. As such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. He relied upon the judgment of the Patna High Court in Raghoji House of Distribution Versus State of Bihar reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Pat 2368 5. On the other hand, learned respondents counsel oppose 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. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 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 5 WPC No. 3652 of 2025 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 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 6 WPC No. 3652 of 2025 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." (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 7 WPC No. 3652 of 2025 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 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 8 WPC No. 3652 of 2025 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 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 9 WPC No. 3652 of 2025 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." (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 is seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities to release the admitted and undisputed payment of the tender amount for the work executed by the petitioner, along with interest, despite knowing the fact that the final bill has been sanctioned and approved by the respondent department itself; 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 10 WPC No. 3652 of 2025 appropriate for this Court to entertain the instant writ petition as there are disputed questions of fact involved. 15. 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. 16. 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