1 2025:CGHC:44842-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4687 of 2025 Yashwant Nayak S/o Shri Vidyanand Nayak Aged About 38 Years R/o D-100, Chandrapur Road Raigarh Road, Baramkela, Nagar Panchayat Baramkela, District - Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Director, Urban Administration And Development Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Joint Director, Urban Administration And Development Bilaspur Division District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Collector District Sarangarh Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Baramkela, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Sub Engineer Nagar Panchayat Baramkela, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Akhand Pratap Pandey, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 4/State : Mr.Prafull Bharat, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.09.04 10:25:11 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 3.9.2025 1. Heard Mr.Akhand Pratap Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafull Bharat, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 to 4/State. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “1. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 namely the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Baramkela, and the Sub-Engineer, Nagar Panchayat Baramkela, to forthwith prepare the final measurement book, prepare the bill and ensure due verification of the construction work already completed by the Petitioner in accordance with law; 2. Direct the Respondents to disburse the admitted and legitimate payment towards the aforesaid work executed by the Petitioner, within a time-bound period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court, so as to secure the ends of justice along with interest. 3. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”. 3. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the 3 arbitrary and unjustified inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not preparing the bills and releasing the payments for the works executed by the petitioner under Nagar Panchayat Baramkela, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. The petitioner was awarded several public works which were executed in time and to the satisfaction of the department. On 07.01.2025, the petitioner submitted his first application stating that three works had already been completed up to 80-90% and requested preparation of bills and release of payment. The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Baramkela, vide letter dated 02.01.2025, had already referred the matter for laboratory testing of construction materials, and the report dated 20.01.2025 confirmed that the works were of good quality with no deficiencies. Despite this, the petitioner's repeated reminders, including a second reminder sent both physically and through e-mail, were not considered. On 01.06.2025, the petitioner made a detailed representation referring to the earlier applications, clearly stating that although about 25% of the sanctioned amount had been allotted by superior authorities, the bills were not being prepared and the running bills had remained pending for the last eight months. Due to non- payment, the petitioner is unable to continue the construction work and is facing acute financial hardship, and the pace of public development works is being adversely affected. Hence, this petition. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has been almost a year since the completion of the aforesaid works, yet the respondent authorities have failed to release the pending bills of the petitioner, which is in clear contravention of the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. Such unreasonable and deliberate delay in releasing the outstanding bills has caused severe financial hardship and mental agony to the petitioner. The respondents are, therefore, liable to release the outstanding bills along with interest @18% per annum, as per the terms. He further submits that due to the impugned inaction/omission on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner is facing huge financial hardship. Being government authorities, the respondents were duty- bound to act fairly and in a justified manner, strictly adhering to the contractual obligations. However, the respondents have acted in an unfair, arbitrary and whimsical manner, thereby violating the petitioner's legitimate rights. He also submits that the impugned inaction/omission of the respondent authorities is grossly arbitrary in nature and appears to have been done with malafide intention to cause unnecessary mental harassment to the petitioner. The aforesaid inaction/omission on the part of the respondents is highly unjust, unfair and unreasonable, which clearly demonstrates that the respondents are acting in an 5 arbitrary and whimsical manner, causing grave prejudice and undue financial hardship to the petitioner. As such, the the writ petition deserves to be allowed and direction may be issued to respondents No.5 and 6 to forthwith prepare final measurement book, prepare the bill and ensure due verification of the construction work already completed by the petitioner and also directed them to disburse the admitted and legitimate payment towards the aforesaid work executed by the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes 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 learned counsel for the parties and perused the 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 error in entertaining a writ petition filed seeking 6 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 7 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, 8 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 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: 9 "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 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. 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 10 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." (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 disburse the admitted and legitimate payment towards the work executed by the petitioner within a time-bound period along with interest. 15. In the instant case, the relief to disburse the admitted and legitimate payment sought by the petitioner is contingent upon the resolution of the disputed question of facts raised, and 11 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 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 Bablu