1 2025:CGHC:54038-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5627 of 2025 Govind Agarwal S/o Mr. Gopal Agarwal Aged About 54 Years A Proprietorship Having Its Place Of Business At D-4, Rajiv Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Government Of Chhattisgarh Sector - 19, North Block, Vikas Bhawan, Ground Floor, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency, Civil Lines, Raipur- 492001 4 - Executive Engineer Cum Member Secretary Project Implementation Unit No. 2, Cgrrda, Keshkal, District - Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency Ministry Of Rural Development Government Of India, 15 Nbcc Tower, 5th Floor, Bhikajicama Place, New Delhi ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. and Ms. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.11.07 10:36:43 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondent / State and Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel for respondent / Union of India. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing respondents to refund the undisputed Additional Performance Security (APS) amount of ₹21.26 Lakhs and 50% of Security Deposit amount to the petitioner forthwith, as per the terms of the contract and Clause 43.2 and 43.3 of the Standard Bidding Document (SBD). 2. Award interest of 12% on the Additional Performance Security (APS) amount of 21.26 Lakhs and 50% Security Deposit Amount from the completion date of the work (22.08.2023) until the date of actual refund. 3. Grant any other relief or pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. For this act of kindness, the petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever pray.” 3 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Proprietorship Concern duly registered with the Public Works Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, as a Class-A Contractor bearing UIN CGeR03132. Pursuant to a successful bid in response to Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) Nos. 826, 827, 828, 829, 830, 831 & 832/TC-T/CGRRDA/2022 dated 02.11.2022, the petitioner was awarded Tender No. 114034 for the renewal and maintenance of rural roads under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) in District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. Consequently, a work order was issued to the petitioner on 10.02.2023, and the work was duly completed within the stipulated period. A completion certificate was accordingly issued on 22.08.2023. As per the terms of the Sanction Order (Memo No. 1023/17039/RC-9/CGRRDA/2023 dated 17.01.2023) and in compliance with Clause 39 of the Conditions of Contract of the Standard Bidding Document (SBD), the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.6,23,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Twenty-Three Thousand only) towards Security Deposit and an additional sum of Rs.21,26,000/- towards Additional Performance Security (APS). However, despite the completion of the work and issuance of the completion certificate, the respondents have failed to refund the amount of Additional Performance Security and 50% of the Security Deposit, which continue to be withheld without justification. The petitioner has made repeated representations 4 dated 01.04.2024, 13.08.2024, 17.07.2025, and 03.09.2025 before Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, requesting refund of the aforesaid amounts along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of completion of work. Despite the lapse of considerable time, no action has been taken by the respondents, hence this present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inordinate delay on the part of the respondent authorities in settling the legitimate claim of the petitioner has caused serious prejudice to his business interests. It is contended that despite the petitioner having duly completed the contractual work under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) and having been issued a completion certificate on 22.08.2023, the respondents have failed to refund the Additional Performance Security (APS) amounting to Rs.21.26 lakhs and 50% of the Security Deposit, which is a clear violation of Clauses 43.2 and 43.3 of the Standard Bidding Document (SBD) governing refund of performance securities. It is further urged that the withholding of these amounts, without any justification, notice, or communication, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the principles of natural justice. The respondents, being instrumentalities of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, are under a constitutional and legal obligation to act fairly, reasonably, and transparently. Their failure to refund the amounts due to the petitioner despite full 5 compliance with all contractual obligations amounts to unjust enrichment at the expense of the petitioner. Such arbitrary withholding of the APS and 50% of the Security Deposit not only violates the contractual terms but also demonstrates non- application of mind and administrative apathy. The petitioner, having an undisputed and legitimate entitlement under Clauses 43.2 and 43.3 of the SBD, is entitled to immediate refund of the said sums along with interest, and the continued inaction of the respondents warrants interference by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 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, 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. 6 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 view of the specific defences raised by the appellants in each of these cases they deserved 7 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) 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 8 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) 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 9 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 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 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) 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 refund 11 the Additional Performance Security (APS) amount of Rs. 21.26 Lakhs and 50% of the Security Deposit amount to the petitioner. 15. In the instant case, the relief of refund 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 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