1 WPC No. 5523 of 2025 2025:CGHC:52115-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5523 of 2025 M/S Nainu And Sons D-Class Contractor, Raipur, C.G. Through Its Partner- Mr. Srijan Tiwari, S/o Shri Sunil Tiwari, Aged 36 Years, R/o 18, Recreation Marg, Choubey Colony Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - The Chhattisgarh Housing Board Through Its Commissioner, H.Q.- Paryavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 2 - Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board Division No. 03, Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 3 - Assistant Engineer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board Division No. 03, Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Purnima Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.10.28 10:39:14 +0530 2 WPC No. 5523 of 2025 Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 27.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Purnima Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the matter in hand. 10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned tender cancellation letter dt. 04/07/2025 (Ann. P/1) along with the impugned order dt. 22/09/2025 (Ann. - P/2). 10.3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders to the respondent authorities to clear the arrears of Rs. 4,24,000/- due to the petitioner along with EMD SD and PSD amounts. Further seeking direction for payment of Rs. 1,69,000/- (EMD, SD & PSD) dues of the previous year contract [Jan. 2024 to Dec. 2024] along with @ 12% interest p. a. 10.4. Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioners.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner and respondent authority entered into a contract for the work of running and maintenance work of S.T.P. at Greens Valley City, Boriyakala, 3 WPC No. 5523 of 2025 Raipur (C.G.). The work order was issued for stipulated time of 12 months with total cost of contract amounting to Rs.12,74,805/-. With respect to the work done by the petitioner, the petitioner company issued letters to the respondent authority to clear dues amounting to Rs. 4,24,000/- at the end of tender tenure, however, the respondent authorities in order to erroneously evade its obligations of payment, has raised objection regarding dissatisfaction in work, while the entire tenure of tender, no such concern was ever raised by the authorities. Thereafter, the respondent authorities issued a premediated impugned tender cancellation order without releasing due payments to the petitioner and clearly lacking mandatory issuance of prior show cause notice, violating settled principles of natural justice. The impugned tender cancellation was challenged before this Court in WPC No. 4293/2025 and this Court directed the respondent No. 01 to conclude the proceedings within 06 weeks. The respondent No. 01 issued order dt. 22/09/2025 upholding arbitrary cancellation of tender, completely ignoring the issue of payments of EMD, SD & PSD of the present and previous year. Hence, this petition, seeking direction to quash/set aside the impugned tender cancellation letter, impugned order of Commissioner upholding tender cancellation dt. 22/09/2025 and seeking order/direction to release withheld dues amounting to Rs. 4,24,000/- along with EMD, SD and PSD of the current year 4 WPC No. 5523 of 2025 @ 12% interest p.a. as well as previous year EMD, SD and PSD amounting to Rs. 1,69,000/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned tender cancellation letter dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) was never formally served to the petitioner, which is an undignified and informal mode of communication in official matters. No show- cause notice was issued prior to the cancellation, amounting to a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the respondents have issued the impugned order with mala fide intention to evade payment of the petitioner’s legitimate dues. The petitioner’s work was regularly supervised by the concerned Assistant Engineer, who had expressed satisfaction with the quality of work throughout. No objections were raised during the execution period, and the alleged deficiencies were pointed out only when the petitioner demanded clearance of pending bills. Such action clearly reflects biased and vindictive intent on the part of the respondents. Hence, he prays for quashing the impugned tender cancellation letter dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 22.09.2025 (Annexure P/2), and direct the respondents to release the petitioner’s pending payments. As such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned respondents counsel oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and 5 WPC No. 5523 of 2025 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 other documents appended with writ petition. 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 Corporation 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 6 WPC No. 5523 of 2025 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 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." 7 WPC No. 5523 of 2025 (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 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 8 WPC No. 5523 of 2025 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 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 9 WPC No. 5523 of 2025 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 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 10 WPC No. 5523 of 2025 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 pending dues for the work executed 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. 15. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, further considering the disputed questions of facts 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