1 2025:CGHC:50789-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5327 of 2025 M/s Anita Contruction Through Its Proprietor Smt. Anita Singh W/o Shri Ravindra Singh, D/o Shri Ramjeet Singh, Presently Aged About 53 Years, Address Kosa Nagar, Market Line, Ward No. 2, Bhilai, Dist. Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya Nawa Raipur, Dist. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Municipal Corporation Durg Through Its Commissioner, Durg, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Engineer Municipal Corporation Durg, Dist. Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 13.10.2025 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.10.14 11:20:33 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Aman Tamboli, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard 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 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.14,66,509/- 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 firm is a duly registered construction entity carrying on business for several years and has earned a commendable reputation in the field of civil works through its consistent performance and integrity. The 3 respondent authorities invited a tender dated 20.09.2023 for the work of “Renovation of Muktidham at Ward No.50, Borsi Bhata, Near Railway Crossing, Durg (C.G.) – 2nd Call, System No.147782” valued at Rs.24.50 lakhs. The petitioner participated in the said tender and was declared successful. Consequently, a work order dated 14.12.2023 was issued in favour of the petitioner, whereupon the petitioner commenced and executed the assigned work diligently. The petitioner submitted his first bill amounting to Rs.11,48,556/- in May 2023, which was to be cleared by July 2023. However, only Rs.82,047/- has been paid to date. Further, work worth an additional Rs.4,00,000/- has also been completed, making the total value of work executed Rs.15,48,556/-. Despite repeated requests and submission of a written representation dated 01.07.2025, the respondents have failed to clear the legitimate dues of the petitioner, while the Executive Engineer arbitrarily stopped the ongoing work without justification. The petitioner, thus facing financial distress, has approached this Court seeking redressal for non-payment of his legitimate dues, alleging violation of his constitutional and legal rights. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in withholding the admitted dues of the petitioner is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. It is contended that once the work has been duly completed to the satisfaction 4 of the authorities, there exists no legal justification to retain the payment. Such conduct on the part of the respondents amounts to denial of the petitioner’s Right to Business and Right to Livelihood. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in Atul Tiwari vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., WPC No.3253/2021, decided on 30.04.2024, wherein this Court held that retention of bills amounts to unjust enrichment and is contrary to the principles of equity and good conscience. It is further submitted that in similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surya Constructions vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2019) 16 SCC 794, and this Court in W.A. No.123/2025, decided on 18.02.2025, have categorically directed the authorities to release the pending payments within a stipulated time along with interest. The petitioner, having completed the contractual obligations in entirety, is legally entitled to receive the outstanding amount of Rs.14,66,509/- along with appropriate interest. Hence, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to clear the admitted dues forthwith and to grant such other reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 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 5 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. 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 6 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." (emphasis supplied) 7 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 8 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: "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 9 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., (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. From perusal of the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to provide compensation of the work already executed by him with commercial interest @ 12% per annum. 15. In the instant case, the relief of compensation 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. 11 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/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet