1 WPC No. 6409 of 2025 2025:CGHC:60203-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6409 of 2025 Surjeet Singh Bhatiya S/o Late Shri Sohan Singh Bhatiya Aged About 64 Years R/o Ward No.- 11, Budhwari Para, Dongargarh, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. A Company Registered Under The Companies Act 1956 Through Its Managing Director Bal Aashram Parisar Kachhahari Chowk, Headquarters, Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - District Manager Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., District Office Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Collector Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.12.12 12:13:44 +0530 2 WPC No. 6409 of 2025 Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 11.12.2025 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to Direct the respondent authority to release the said amount as soon as possible. 10.2 That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted in favor of the petitioner safeguarding her interest.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner participated in a tender floated by the respondent authorities in 2010–2011 for transportation of food materials and deposited Rs.4,00,000/- as security. Upon being allotted work in Khairagarh and Chhuikhadan blocks of District Rajnandgaon, the petitioner completed the assigned duties satisfactorily, as certified on 04.04.2011. However, in March 2011, a false complaint was made against him, leading to his blacklisting and forfeiture of the security amount. The petitioner challenged the said action in WPC No. 1968/2011, which was allowed on 01.09.2011; the blacklisting and forfeiture were quashed, and the petitioner was permitted to participate in future tenders, pursuant to which he worked during 2011–2012. Subsequently, on the basis of a complaint by the Food Inspector, Crime No. 77/2011 under the Essential Commodities Act was registered against certain 3 WPC No. 6409 of 2025 persons, but the petitioner was neither named in the charge- sheet nor put to trial. Despite repeated written requests, the respondents did not return the security amount. Ultimately, the criminal case ended in acquittal on 22.11.2017. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking aforesaid relief. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the non-return of the security amount of Rs.4,00,000/- is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. It is contended that the very basis of blacklisting has already been set aside by this Court, after which the petitioner participated in subsequent tenders and duly transported food materials as directed, leaving no justification for forfeiture of the security amount. It is further argued that the petitioner was neither named nor charged in the criminal case arising out of Crime No. 77/2011, and the charge-sheeted accused have already been acquitted, with no appeal filed by the State; therefore, retaining the petitioner’s money is wholly unjustified. The petitioner has not committed any breach of tender conditions nor played any role in the alleged criminal offence, yet the respondents continue to withhold his hard- earned money without authority of law. Hence, the amount is liable to be released forthwith and as such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 4 WPC No. 6409 of 2025 petitioner and would submit that the writ petition as framed and filed is not maintainable as the disputed question of facts cannot be adjudicated in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the writ petition. 6. 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. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Grid Corporation 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, 5 WPC No. 6409 of 2025 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 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) 6 WPC No. 6409 of 2025 8. 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 cannot be said that there will be any bar to proceed under Article 226 of the Constitution." (emphasis supplied) 7 WPC No. 6409 of 2025 9. 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." 10. 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 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 8 WPC No. 6409 of 2025 not have the expertise in respect of measurements or construction of roads." 11. 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) 12. 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. 9 WPC No. 6409 of 2025 13. From perusal of the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner is seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities to release the pending dues or security deposit; 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. 14. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, further considering the disputed questions of facts 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. 15. 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/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S.Bhilwar