1 2025:CGHC:54529-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5840 of 2025 Sai Electricals Through The Proprietor Pranesh Vaishnav, S/o Prafull Mohan Das, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Sai Electricals, Main Road, Khairagarh, District Khairagarh - Chhuikhadan - Gandai (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration and Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director Directorate of Urban Administration And Development, Indravati Bhawan, Block D, Fourth Floor, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Chief Municipal Officer Municipal Council Khairagarh, District Khairagarh - Chhuikhadan - Gandai (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.11.10 17:03:11 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State and Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction thereby directing the respondent authorities particularly to respondent No. 3 to release/disburse the payment of the petitioner’s duly approved bills to the tune of Rs. 2,40,480/- (Two Lakh Forty Thousand Four Hundred Eighty only) along with interest, in the ends of justice. 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper be awarded in favour of the petitioner, including the cost of the petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the proprietor of Sai Electricals, a firm engaged in the business of electrical works, including the repair and maintenance of pumps and related installations. He further submits that the Municipal Council, Khairagarh (Chhattisgarh), invited an open tender on 20.04.2022 for the repair and re-winding of water supply pumps to ensure uninterrupted drinking 3 water facilities within the municipal limits. An amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- was sanctioned by the Chief Municipal Officer, Khairagarh, for the said purpose. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance of the said tender, three firms—Sai Electricals (the petitioner’s firm), Heavy Enterprises, and V.K. Traders, Dongargarh— submitted their bids. The bid of the petitioner’s firm was found to be the lowest and was accepted in accordance with the prevailing market rates. Consequently, on 11.05.2022, a formal contract was executed between Sai Electricals and the Municipal Council, Khairagarh, for the repair and re-winding of pumps. Thereafter, in the meeting of the President-in-Council held on 23.05.2022, vide Resolution No. 05 (Proposal No. 05), it was unanimously resolved to approve the lowest rates received under the said tender for a total of 14 works, wherein at Serial No. 9 the petitioner’s firm Sai Electricals was approved for an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to the said approval, the petitioner duly executed the work of repair and re- winding of pumps as per the technical specifications and tender conditions within the stipulated time, against the work orders issued by the Municipal Council, Khairagarh. Upon completion, the petitioner raised Bill No. 136 dated 13.05.2025 for an amount of Rs. 2,40,480/-. Due entries were made in the Floating Stock Register of the Municipal Council confirming receipt and completion of the work. Despite the 4 satisfactory completion of the work and due verification by the respondent authorities, the payment of Rs. 2,40,480/- has not been released till date. The petitioner made repeated representations dated 03.07.2025, 11.07.2025, and 28.07.2025 before the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Khairagarh, requesting the release of the pending payment. 6. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in response to the petitioner’s representations, the Office of the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Khairagarh, vide letter dated 11.07.2025, admitted that the petitioner’s firm had duly executed the work of repair and re-winding of pumps amounting to Rs. 2,40,480/-. However, it was stated that due to financial constraints of the Council, the bills could not be cleared and would be processed only after improvement in revenue collection. He further contended that such a plea of financial difficulty is untenable, as the Municipal Council, Khairagarh, has received substantial budgetary allocations from the Government from time to time, including Rs. 8,46,150/- on 14.01.2025 under the emergency repairing maintenance fund, Rs. 5,93,026/- on 03.04.2025 for summer temporary water scarcity prevention, and Rs.8.46 lakhs on 26.06.2025 for the first trimester (April–June 2025) under the emergency repairing maintenance fund. Thus, the respondent authority cannot contend that it is suffering from a paucity of funds. The respondents’ failure to release the admitted payment despite the petitioner’s repeated representations amounts to arbitrary and unreasonable conduct in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of 5 India. The respondents have failed to discharge their statutory and contractual obligations, thereby compelling the petitioner to run from pillar to post for realization of his lawful dues. He further submits that the amount payable to the petitioner is wholly undisputed. It is well settled that even in matters arising out of a contract, if the action of the State or its instrumentalities is found to be arbitrary or unreasonable, the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, can grant relief. Reference is made to ABL International Ltd. & Another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Others, (2004) 3 SCC 553, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the State cannot act arbitrarily even in contractual matters and that writ jurisdiction is maintainable in such cases. It is further settled law that it is not an inviolable rule that no money claim can be entertained in writ proceedings. Non-payment of admitted and undisputed dues by the State or its authorities amounts to arbitrary action attracting the writ jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court. Reliance is placed on Surya Constructions v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, (2019) 16 SCC 794, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that writ petitions are maintainable for recovery of admitted dues when the State acts unfairly or unreasonably. 7. In light of the foregoing facts and settled legal principles, the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the admitted amount of Rs. 2,40,480/- along with interest and costs, and to pass such further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6 8. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate 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. 9. We have learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ petitions. 10. 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. 11. 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 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 7 "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." (emphasis supplied) 12. The aforesaid judgment has been relied/ reiterated by the Hon’ble 8 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 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) 9 13. 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." 14. 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 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 10 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.” 15. 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) 16. 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. 11 17. 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. 18. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, further considering the disputed questions of fact involved in this writ petition, 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. 19. 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 Brijmohan