1 2025:CGHC:51288-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5393 of 2025 Roshan Gupta S/o Late Shri Bhrigu Prasad Gupta, Aged About 56 Years Proprietor of M/s Roshan Gupta D Class Contractor, Near Bus Stand Main Road, Sitapur, Dist. Surguja (C.G.) ...Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Public Works Department, Mantralaya Nawa Raipur Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chief Engineer, PWD Surguja Zone Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Superintending Engineer, Pwd Division Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Executive Engineer, PWD Division Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja (C.G.) 5 - Collector, Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja (C.G.) 6 - Chief Medical and Health Officer, Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja (C.G.) 7 - Block Medical Officer, Sitapur, Dist. Surguja (C.G.) 8 - Tehsildar, Sitapur, Dist. Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondents _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General assisted by Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15 . 10 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Aman Tamboli, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General, assisted by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Mr.S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records from the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately pay the sum of Rs. 8 lacs to the petitioner with 12% per annum interest within such time bound period as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That the respondents be directed to compensate the petitioner by paying suitable compensation as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.4 That Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass such other order or orders, direction or directions, writ or writs, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued in favour of the petitioner against the respondents. Cost of litigation may also be awarded.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Roshan Gupta firm and he is a D Class Contractor. The office of 3 Respondent No.4 floated a tender for construction of twin F-type quarter at Sitapur for estimated cost of Rs.25.26 lakhs. Petitioner participated in the tender process and he was allotted the work order for construction of 2 numbers of F type residential quarter at CHC Sitapur, Dist. Surguja, C.G. Vide communication dated 24/06/2015, petitioner was directed to attend the office of Respondent No.4 to execute the agreement regarding the work allotment. Thereafter vide letter dated 04/07/2015 petitioner was directed to start the work at once and the time allotted for carrying out the work was 6 months. Upon receiving the work order, petitioner vide his letter dated 01/08/2015 requested the Respondent No.4 to provide layout and the spot where the construction was to be done so that the work could get completed within stipulated time. Thereafter, Respondent No.4 send letter dated 10/08/2015 to Respondent No.6 and requested him to provide land, map for initiating the construction work allotted to the petitioner's firm. On 17/08/2015 petitioner again requested the office of Respondent No.4 to provide the place where construction was to be done and to provide the layout. Thereafter the spot for construction was selected by the respondents and ultimately the petitioner was asked to commence the work. Accordingly the petitioner arranged sand, bricks, iron rods, cement, JCB, labors and other necessary required articles, machineries and equipments. The petitioner dumped all the raw materials on the site and also got electricity meter installed and the petitioner started his work with immense dedication and all his best efforts but all of sudden some unscrupulous busy body started creating nuisance by visiting on the site 4 and creating havoc that the site land belongs to him. Petitioner communicated this to Respondent No.4 vide letter dated 10/10/2015 and requested to make the payment of work already done. All of sudden Respondent No.8 passed a stay order dated 12/10/2015 and directed to stop the ongoing construction work immediately. On account of the aforesaid order, petitioner was stunned and highly shocked. Respondent No.7 issued the letter dated 16/10/2015 and again communicated the order passed by Respondent No.8. The petitioner wrote several letters to Respondent No.4 and requested him to make the payment of the work already done but to no avail. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after receiving the work order and after providing the site by the respondent authorities, the petitioner has arranged sand, bricks, iron rods, cement, JCB, labors and other necessary required articles, machineries and equipments and he has also dumped all the raw materials on the site and also got electricity meter installed and the petitioner started his work with immense dedication and all his best efforts but all of sudden some unscrupulous busy body started creating nuisance by visiting on the site and creating havoc that the site land belongs to him. Petitioner communicated this to Respondent No.4 vide letter dated 10/10/2015 and requested to make the payment of work already done. All of sudden Respondent No.8 passed a stay order dated 12/10/2015 and directed to stop the ongoing construction work immediately. The petitioner wrote several letters to Respondent No.4 and requested him 5 to make the payment of the work already done but to no avail. He also submitted that the documents filed with the petition clearly shows that the respondents are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 8 lacs along with 12% interest per annum to the petitioner. The act of respondents deserves to be deprecated and they are liable to compensate the petitioner for the mental agony. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Atul Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, WPC No. 3253 of 2021, decided on 30.04.2024. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate General opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the writ petition as framed and filed are 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 petitions. 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) & Others v. Sukamani Das (Smt.) & Another, reported in (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 6 the authorities. The Hon’ble 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 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 7 226 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.P.S. Rathore v. State of Haryana & Others, reported in (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 8 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, reported in 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, reported in (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 9 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., reported in (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) 10 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. In the present cases, the relief of compensations 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 present writ petitions 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 these writ petitions, the reliefs sought by the petitioner and in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments (supra), we do not find any good ground to entertain these writ petitions. 16. Accordingly, the present writ petitions being devoid of merit are liable to be and are 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 Chandra