1 WPC No. 6605 of 2025 2025:CGHC:61791-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6605 of 2025 M/s R.D. Construction, A Sole Proprietorship Firm Having Its Office Qtr. No. Tulip - 353 A - Block, International Coloney, Talpuri, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.), Through Its Owner, Smt. Ranjana Dhakate, W/o Shri D. Dhakate, Age About 49 Years, R/o Qtr. No. Tulip - 353 A - Block, International Coloney, Talpuri, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India Through Its Secretary Ministry Of Jal Shakti/ Department Of Drinking Water And Sanitation, Cr Section, Room No. 224, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi, New Delhi - 110001 Water Resources Department 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Public Health Engineering Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Mission Director Jal Jeevan Mission, Neer Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.12.19 16:01:55 +0530 2 WPC No. 6605 of 2025 4 - Collector/ President District Water And Sanitation Mission (Dwsm), Public Health Engineering Division, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer/ Member Secretary District Water And Sanitation Mission (Dwsm), Public Health Engineering Division, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Mishra, Advocate For Respondents/ UoI : Mr. R.K. Mishra, DSGI For Respondents/ State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 19.12.2025 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 issue appropriate writ/writs to direct the respondent authorities to make full payment of amount of the bills presented by the petitioner against the work done with interest, within the stipulated period of time as Hon'ble Court may prescribed for it. 10.2) Any other relief, including the cost of this petition, as it appears to be fit and appropriate to this Hon'ble Court be granted.” 2. (i) Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner, a successful 3 WPC No. 6605 of 2025 bidder under the Jal Jeevan Mission for construction of water supply systems in Villages Achholi, Soram and Paraskol, District Mahasamund, duly completed 50% of the contracted work within the stipulated period in terms of the tender conditions. Despite such completion, the respondent authorities failed to release the corresponding payment. Instead, respondent No.3 issued an office order dated 14.11.2023 alleging violation of Para 2.085 of the Works Department Manual on the ground of an alleged relationship of the petitioner with the then Executive Engineer, which provision neither bars participation of relatives in the tender process nor imposes any disclosure obligation upon the bidder, and in any event does not cover the petitioner’s relationship. (ii) Despite repeated representations and directions from higher authorities, including a letter dated 26.04.2024 and an inspection report dated 08.01.2025 certifying satisfactory work and recommending release of payment, no amount has been paid to the petitioner. The District Water and Sanitation Mission also accorded unanimous approval for payment of 50% of the bills, and respondent No.5 even sought release of funds amounting to Rs. 44.18 lakh; however, the respondents have arbitrarily withheld payment for over 18 months. The continued non- payment, based on oral directions allegedly issued by respondent No.3 to stop payments in running water schemes, 4 WPC No. 6605 of 2025 despite completion of work and issuance of completion certificates, is arbitrary, unreasonable and without any legal justification. The petitioner has thus been subjected to mental and financial harassment, leaving no other option but to approach this Court. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking aforesaid relief. 3. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, being a successful bidder in nine tenders under the Jal Jeevan Mission for villages situated in Basna, Saraipali, Pithora and Mahasamund Blocks, duly completed 50% of the contracted work within the stipulated time and the quality of the work has been duly certified by respondent No.5. Despite submission of bills and repeated requests for release of payment to enable continuation of the remaining work, the respondents have arbitrarily withheld the dues, even though respondents Nos.3, 4 and 5 are collectively responsible for making such payment and, in view of the prolonged delay, are liable to release the entire billed amount. He would further submit that the action of the respondents in misinterpreting Para 2.085 of the Works Department Manual is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable, as the said provision neither prohibits relatives from participating in the tender process nor casts any disclosure obligation upon the bidder, and in any case does not cover the petitioner’s alleged relationship. Even otherwise, respondent No.3 itself, by order 5 WPC No. 6605 of 2025 dated 14.11.2023, directed release of payment under the Miscellaneous Public Works Advance head, which direction was to take immediate effect, yet no payment has been released till date despite quality inspection reports, recommendations, and a specific request dated 23.04.2025 for release of Rs. 44.18 lakh. (b) Learned counsel would also contend that payments have been illegally stopped on the basis of oral directions without any written order or justification, causing severe mental and financial hardship to the petitioner. There being no dispute regarding specifications, quality, or completion of work, and completion and testing certificates having already been issued, the continued non-payment is arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and contrary to the objectives and funding mechanism of the Jal Jeevan Mission, rendering the present writ petition maintainable 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 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 WPC No. 6605 of 2025 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, 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 7 WPC No. 6605 of 2025 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) 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 8 WPC No. 6605 of 2025 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. 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 9 WPC No. 6605 of 2025 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 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: 10 WPC No. 6605 of 2025 "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. 13. From perusal of the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner is seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities to release the pending dues against the work done 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 11 WPC No. 6605 of 2025 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