1 2025:CGHC:44841-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4685 of 2025 Shree Balaji Enterprises Through Its Power Of Attorney At Holder Shri Nalin Jindal Aged About 36 Years S/o Late Shri Naresh Jindal R/o Ketka Road, Ward No. 13, Surajpur, Police Station And Tehsil Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Assistant Commissioner, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Collectorate Parisar, Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr.Prafull Bharat, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General 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. Pranjal Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafull Bharat, learned Advocate General BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.09.04 10:31:56 +0530 2 assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the Respondents/State. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the instant case. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased order any appropriate Writ/Writ(s), Direction/Direction(s) directing the Respondent No. 2 to forthwith release the admitted dues of 16,40,913/- to the Petitioner along ₹ with the interest within a stipulated period of time. 10.3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other Relief/Relief(s), Direction/Direction(s) in favour of the Petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.4. Award cost of proceedings in favour of the Petitioner.”. 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is a duly registered firm engaged in the business of supplying PU Foam Mattresses and Pillows. The Respondent Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (CSIDC) floated a tender for purchase of mattresses and pillows, in which the petitioner's bid was accepted, and accordingly a rate contract was granted vide memo dated 30.11.2022. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner manufactured and supplied the required materials. The supplies made by the petitioner were duly inspected by the competent 3 authority, and not a single piece was rejected. A certificate dated 20.03.2023 was accordingly issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter supplied 370 mattresses to respondent No. 2, submitted bills, and prepared delivery challans confirming the supply. 4. On an application filed by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, the respondents own records and notesheets categorically acknowledge that the petitioner has supplied 370 mattresses amounting to 16,69,033/-, out of which an admitted ₹ amount of 16,40,913/- remains payable. Furthermore, a ₹ Committee headed by the Additional Collector, Raigarh, has also recommended the release of funds including the petitioner's dues. It is also pertinent that in the case of a similarly situated supplier, this Court, in WPC No. 2031 of 2024, vide order dated 23.07.2024, directed the authorities to release the bill amount within eight weeks, failing which the payment would carry 6% interest per annum. The respondent authorities have complied with the said order and released the payments of those suppliers who had approached this Court. However, the petitioner's name appears at serial No. 5 of the notesheet dated 08.04.2025 as one whose payment of 16,40,913/- is still ₹ pending, despite the admitted liability. 5. The petitioner has also submitted several representations before respondent No. 2 seeking release of his admitted dues, 4 but the same have not been considered or acted upon till date. The action of the respondents in withholding the petitioner's legitimate dues is wholly arbitrary, unjustified, and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has already performed his contractual obligations in entirety, and yet the admitted amount has not been paid, causing grave financial hardship and loss. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of respondent No. 2 in withholding an amount of 16,40,913/-, ₹ which is lawfully due and payable to the petitioner, is wholly arbitrary, unjustified, and without any authority of law. The said amount pertains to the lawful entitlement of the petitioner towards the work executed/supply made/dues accrued under the valid contract/arrangement, and there exists no legal or factual justification for withholding the same. He further submits that respondent No. 2 has acted in gross violation of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the petitioner's property/legitimate dues cannot be withheld except by authority of law and despite repeated requests and representations, respondent No. 2 has failed to discharge its statutory and contractual obligation of releasing the legitimate payment, thereby causing severe financial hardship and prejudice to the petitioner. He also submits that withholding of the amount of 16,40,913/- is not only illegal and arbitrary, but ₹ also amounts to unjust enrichment on the part of the 5 respondents, which is impermissible in law. He contended that the petitioner has already performed his part of the contract/work in entirety, and therefore, withholding of payment without any plausible justification reflects malafide, arbitrary and high-handed conduct on the part of respondent No. 2. He further contended that respondent No. 2 has failed to consider and decide the representations made by the petitioner from time to time for release of the lawful dues, which is contrary to the settled principles of fair administrative action. As such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and direction may be issued to respondent No.2 to forthwith release the admitted dues of 16,40,913/- to the petitioner along with the interest. ₹ 7. 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. 8. We have learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with writ appeal. 9. 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. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Grid 6 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 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 7 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 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) 11. 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 8 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 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) 12. 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 9 High Court to make a comparative assessment of conflicting technical reports and decide which one is acceptable." 13. 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 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." 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India 10 (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 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) 15. 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. 16. From perusal of the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner has 11 prayed for issuance of direction to respondent No.2 to forthwith release the admitted dues of 16,40,913/- to the petitioner ₹ along with the interest within a stipulated period of time. 17. In the instant case, the relief of release of admitted dues 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. 18. 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. 19. 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