Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:131330-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15699 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jagdish Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajeev Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Present petition has been filed for the following relief: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Letters no.11 & 12/orders dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure No.7) & letter/order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure No.8) passed by respondent no.4. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.4 to pay the balance amount of Rs. 7,80,000/- & Rs. 8,76,000/-as total amount Rs. 16,56,000/- to the petitioner along with interest at the @ of 18% in the light of letter dated 26.07.2024 issued from the office of respondent 3 after completion of the work i.e. 30.12.2021 up to date of release within stipulated period.” 3. Petitioner has been awarded contract for construction of road. 4. Petitioner has earlier approached this court by filing a writ petition being Writ C No.810 of 2025 seeking a direction to the respondents to release the dues of the petitioner which has been disposed of by this court vide judgement and order dated 15.01.2025 directing the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner. In pursuance of the order passed by this court, the Executive Engineer, Construction Division (Pra/Pa), PWD, Mirzapur passed an order dated 12.03.2025 stating that since on inspection the work of the petitioner was not as per the standard prescribed in the contract, therefore, the dues of the petitioner cannot be released. 5. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Superintendent Engineer vide order dated 13.01.2023 has admitted the amount due to the petitioner and therefore, in such view of the fact, the order impugned has been passed in the teeth of the letter/order of the Superintendent Engineer dated 13.01.2023. 6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel would contend that a clear finding has been recorded by the Executive Engineer that after inspection of the site, it was found that the petitioner's work was not up to the standard prescribed in the contract and, therefore, the amount due to the petitioner cannot be released. He submits that the letter dated 13.01.2023 of the Superintendent Engineer does not acknowledge/admit the amount of the petitioner, it only mentions the amount of the petitioner and therefore this is not an admission of the amount due to the petitioner by the Superintendent Engineer. He further contends that the order of the Executive Engineer has been passed after inspection of the site and since the Executive Engineer is the competent authority to release the fund, therefore, his satisfaction is prime and in such view of the fact, the reliance upon the letter of the Superintendent Engineer dated 13.01.2023 is misconceived. 7. Be that as it may, the Executive Engineer while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, has recorded a clear finding and after inspection of the site, it was found that the petitioner's work was not up to the standard prescribed in the contract. 8. The dispute is within the periphery of a contract entered into between the parties and it relates to the breach/non- compliance of the terms and condition of the contract which is purely a disputed question of fact and this court cannot in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, enter into the domain of disputed question of fact, inasmuch as, the question as to whether the petitioner's work is up to the standard prescribed in the tender or not is a question of fact which can be determined only on the basis of pleading and evidence on record. Since the dispute is essentially a contractual dispute and involves disputed question of fact, therefore, this court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot adjudicate the disputed question of fact. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum available under the law. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 S.Chaurasia (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad