JUDGMENT : RAMESH SINHA, CJ. 1. Heard Shri Vivek Chopda, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Shri S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Learned counsel for the State/respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filled for following reliefs:- “10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do issue calling the records from the respondent authorities pertaining to the petitioner's case for its kind perusal, if deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue directing the Respondent State Authorities to forthwith pay within such time frame as this Hon'ble Court may direct, the legally admissible dues of the petitioner along with interest at the rate 18% per annum from the date it became due till its actual realization. 10.3 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue directing the Respondent State Authorities to take such disciplinary action against the concerned delinquent officers because of whom such delay has been caused in making payment to the petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case. 10.5 The cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed primarily challenging the inaction on the part of the respondent State authorities in not disbursing the admitted amount payable to the petitioner towards the final bill and escalation amount under Contract Agreement No. 64/DL of 2009–10. It is submitted that pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 13.10.2009 for construction of Police Training School, Mainpat at Ambikapur, including water supply, sanitary fittings, electrical and allied works, the petitioner participated in the tender process and was declared as the lowest bidder (L-1), having quoted 57.9% above the Schedule of Rates (SOR). Consequently, the tender of the petitioner was accepted, and a formal work agreement was executed on 15.02.2010 between the parties. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has completed the entire contractual work within the stipulated time to the full satisfaction of the respondent authorities, and a completion certificate dated 31.01.2014 has also been issued by Respondent No. 4, categorically certifying that the work has been completed in all respects. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has completed the entire contractual work within the stipulated time to the full satisfaction of the respondent authorities, and a completion certificate dated 31.01.2014 has also been issued by Respondent No. 4, categorically certifying that the work has been completed in all respects. Despite such completion and acknowledgment by the respondents, it is submitted that the final bill amounting to Rs. 38,19,400/- (Rupees Thirty-Eight Lakh Nineteen Thousand and Four Hundred only) has not been released till date. In addition, the escalation amount of Rs. 75,25,750/- (Rupees Seventy-Five Lakh Twenty-Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only) which is also admissible under the contract, has been withheld without any justifiable reason. Learned counsel submits that such inaction on the part of the respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India . Once the work has been duly completed and certified, the respondents are under a legal and contractual obligation to release the final bill and other admissible dues within a reasonable time. He lastly contended that his Hon’ble Court may kindly direct the respondent authorities to immediately process and release the petitioner’s pending final bill amount as well as the escalation dues along with interest thereon, within a stipulated period, in the interest of justice and equity. 4. On the other hand, learned respondents counsel oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits 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 learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with 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 Corpornation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and others v. Smt. Sukamani Das 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 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. 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) 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. 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 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. 13. From the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner completed the entire contractual work for construction of the Police Training School, Mainpat, in 2014 to the satisfaction of the authorities and obtained a completion certificate. However, despite completion, the respondent authorities have failed to release the petitioner’s final bill of Rs. 38.19 lakhs and escalation amount of Rs. 75.25 lakhs, leading to this petition challenging their inaction in disbursing the admitted dues. 14. In the instant case, the relief sought for 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 petition as there are disputed questions of fact involved. 15. 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. 16. 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).