1 2025:CGHC:59432-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4120 of 2025 Sachdeva New Pt College Through Its Director Manish Mayank Alias Mayank Jain S/o Punam Chand Jain Aged About 45, Years Officer Address I I I , Floor B.S. Plaza Dayalband Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Secretary Department Of Tribal Welfare Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Tribal Welfare Department Through Its Collector, Korea District- Korea Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Korea District- Korea Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department District- Korea Chhattisgarh 5 - Mr. L.R. Kurrey Then Assistant Commisoner Tribal Welfare Department Korea District- Korea Chhattisgarh 6 - Shri Narendra Kumar Dugga The Then Collector, Tribal Welfare Department District- Korea Chhattisgarh Mr. L.R. Kurrey Then Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department Korea District- Korea Chhattisgarh Currently Posted As Commissioner Sarguja Division ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Khushboo Dua, Advocate For Respondent No.1 to 4/ State For Respondent Nos.5 & 6 : : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Adv. General Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08 . 12 .202 5 1. Heard Ms. Khushboo Dua, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Anil S. Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 5 & 6. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs : “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold and declare that the Respondent State has no power or authority to conduct an inquiry at this stage as has been conducted to the subject cause. 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate Writ, orders or direction to set aside the Inquiry dated 16.04.2024 and Inquiry Report dated 16.04.2024 (Annexure P/1) and direct the respondents to comply with the final payment. already admitted by the respondent Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure P/6. 10.4. That, this Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction to quash/set aside communication dated 22.04.2024 (Annexure P/1) up to the extent of non-payment of full amount as admitted i.e. 95,44,500/-. 10.5. That, this Hon'ble Court my further be pleased 3 to direct the Respondent No. 3 to pay remaining principal amount of Rs 48,40,425 / as well as interest amount at 18% per annum to the petitioner. 10.6. That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant other relief in favour of petitioner, which may deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that in order to provide free of cost coaching to the aspiring students preparing for various competitive examinations, a scheme was formulated by the State Government and it was decided that the expense of the said coaching shall be borne from the funds of the District Mineral fund. Pursuant to the said scheme NIT was issued on 24.07.2017 inviting application from the concerned agency and thereafter an amendment notification was also issued on 28.08.2017 and the scope of the work was widened because earlier it included only coaching for PET, PMT and PAT, whereas later on the coaching for Railway, Banking, SSC and PSC was also included. The petitioner firm being successful bidder was awarded the work and an agreement was executed between the then Collector, District Korea and the petitioner firm for the said work on 28.02.2018 and the petitioner carried out the coaching work for a period of seven months. Thereafter, the petitioner raised the final bill of Rs. 95,44,500/- but, the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs. 42,33,677/- only. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being WPC No. 78 of 2021 and the said 4 writ petition was disposed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 14.01.2021 with a direction to the concerned Collector to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of that order. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Collector, considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected the same vide order dated 22.02.2021. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner again preferred a writ petition before this Court challenging the order dated 22.02.2021 passed by the Collector and the same was registered as WPC No. 2902 of 2021. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.02.2024 setting aside the order dated 22.02.2021 passed by the Collector and the matter was remanded back to the Collector with a direction to decide the representation of the petitioner afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. Pursuant to the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by this Court in WPC No. 2902 of 2021, the petitioner’s case was taken up and a Committee was constituted to look into the entire case, the Committee minutely examined all the documents and came to the conclusion that the petitioner institution failed to follow the various conditions of the contract and tender document. The Committee specifically observed that a duty was cast upon the petitioner institution to inform the office about the students, who are absent for more than three days, however, the petitioner failed to do so. 5 The Committee after considering all the aspects of the matter came to the conclusion that the petitioner institution is liable to receive Rs. 47,04,075/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition seeking aforementioned reliefs. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the inquiry report prepared by the respondent department and communication dated 22.04.2024 to the extent of non-payment of remaining amount is arbitrary, illegal and without any authority. She further argued that there has already been two rounds of litigation and the petitioner is still not paid the entire amount as accepted before this Hon’ble Court and as admitted by the Assistant Commissioner himself. She also argued that at this stage, after 2 rounds of litigation and after admitting the pending dues in sworn affidavits, the respondents now cannot deviate from the amount admitted by the Assistant Commissioner in his official capacity as well as before this Hon'ble Court and if at all any dispute was to be raised, or any shortcomings were to be pointed, the respondents should have pointed those out at the time of filing their reply before this Hon'ble Court in WPC No. 2902 of 2021 but no such dispute was raised, short comings were pointed out with respect to the final amount. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notorious act of the respondent authorities in coercing the petitioner to file three 6 litigations and making the petitioner entangled in endless litigations is unbecoming of a welfare state and in absolute disregards to the principles enshrined in the Constitution. She further submitted that once an amount is admitted and there has been 2 rounds of litigation with respect to the same amount, the respondents now cannot deviate from the said amount since principal of estoppel is applicable to them. She also submitted that even as per order dated 22.02.2021, which has now been quashed by this Court, the only reason stated was that of lack of administrative sanction and there was no mention about the dispute in amount due and demanded. 10. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders of this Hon'ble Court have never been complied by the respondents in its strict sense. They have mis-interpreted the orders of this Hon'ble Court as per their own whims and fancies and only with an intention to harass the petitioner have initiated an inquiry and prepared such inquiry report disputing the final amount. She further contended that petitioner, after following due process of law was selected to provide free coaching to students of PMT/PET in District Korea which was further divided into 3 blocks. As per the work order and Agreement total minimum strength of students was 300 (100 each block) and per student's fees was Rs. 4545/- and the petitioner started his work of providing coaching to students and after 7 months, petitioner was instructed by the department for the betterment of students so that 7 they can prepare for their exam to stop the coaching which is evident from the letter of Assistant Commissioner as well as reply received from RTI. It is therefore, petitioner demanded for his dues for 7 months only, which comes to Rs. 95,44,500/-. She also contended that the said fact that Rs. 95,44,500/- was due to be paid to the petitioner is substantiated from the letter written by Assistant Commissioner whereby it is mentioned that Rs.95,44,500/- is to be paid to the petitioner. There has been no mention of shortcomings in service provided by the petitioner or any dispute with respect to the amount due, therefore, at this stage the same ought to not be disputed. Even otherwise the calculation done by the respondent authority is above and beyond the agreement executed and work order issued and at a belated stage and if the respondents wanted to dispute the amount that was to be paid to the petitioner, they should have submitted the said before this Hon'ble Court through oral or written submission but the same has never been disputed. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the State as well as learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 5 & 6, who are the then Collector of District Korea and Assistant Commission, Tribal Development, Korea, opposed the aforesaid submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the entire petition framed and filed by the petitioner is without any substance as it involves various disputed questions of facts and the same cannot be adjudicated in the summary writ jurisdiction. It 8 is further submitted that so far as relief prayed in paragraph 10.5 is concerned, wherein the petitioner has prayed for payment of certain amount along with 18% interest, the same is not maintainable as it is purely a contractual dispute, for enforcement of any of the rights arising out of the contractual dispute, the proper remedy is to approach the concerned Civil Court and the writ proceedings are non maintainable. 12. It has been further submitted by them that so far as merit of the case is concerned pursuant to the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by this Court in WPC No. 2902 of 2021, the petitioner’s case was taken up and a Committee was constituted to look into the entire case, the Committee minutely examined all the documents and came to the conclusion that the petitioner institution failed to follow the various conditions of the contract and tender document. The Committee specifically observed that a duty was cast upon the petitioner institution to inform the office about the students, who are absent for more than three days, however, the petitioner failed to do so. The Committee after considering all the aspects of the matter came to the conclusion that the petitioner institution is liable to receive Rs. 47,04,075/-. The also submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order (Annexure P/1) and the same has been passed on the basis of the records, therefore, the instant petition, is devoid of merit and substance and according the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. We have learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned 9 order and other documents appended with writ petitions. 14. 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. 15. 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 "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 10 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) 16. 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 11 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) 17. 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 12 technical reports and decide which one is acceptable." 18. 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 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.” 19. 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: 13 “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) 20. 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. 21. In the present cases, the relief 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. 14 22. 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. 23. 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