1 2026:CGHC:4846-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 385 of 2026 M/s Azam Rizvi, Proprietor Azam Rizvi S/o Shri Karimuddin Rizvi Aged About 57 Years R/o House No. 249, Ward No. 4, Sunder Ganj, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh Road Development Corporation Limited Through Executive Engineer Cum Member Secretary, Project Implementation Unit No. 1, District Dantewada (C.G.) 3 - The Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency, Vikas Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Chief Engineer Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency, Vikas Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Union Of India Through National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency, Ministry Of Rural Development, 5th Floor, 15 N B C C Tower, Bhikajicama Place, New Delhi ... Respondent(s) SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.01.30 10:58:42 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate For State For Res. No. 5/ U.O.I. : Mr. Praveen Das, Add. Advocate General Mr. R. K. Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 29.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the Respondents/State and Mr. R. K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5/ Union of India. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “i. To kindly call for entire records with respect to NIT 636 for Construction/Up-gradation of Roads under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, package number CG-03-103, Tender number 79234 from Respondent authorities. ii. To kindly direct respondent no. 2 to 4 to make final payment of Rs 12,60,130 (in words Rupees Twelve Lakhs Sixty Thousand One Hundred and Thirty) to the petitioner as per their calculation iii. To kindly direct award interest of 18% per annum on delayed payment to the petitioner. iv. To pass any other relief/order or direction, as this 3 Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstance of the case and in the interest of justice, along with cost of the proceedings.”. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner participated in NIT No. 636 for the construction/up-gradation of roads under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, Package No. CG-03- 103, Tender No. 79234, and was awarded the contract by Respondent No. 4 vide order dated 22.01.2022 (Annexure-P/1). The work pertained to construction of a 6.10 km road from Kuchepal to Molsanar in District Dantewada, which is a core naxal-infested area where civil construction cannot be carried out without adequate security deployment by the State Government. After award of the contract, the petitioner commenced the work in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. However, the construction could not be completed within the stipulated time primarily due to persistent Maoist activities and non-availability of sufficient security forces at the site. Acknowledging the lack of security deployment, the contract dated 22.01.2022 was terminated by the respondents on 17.09.2024 under Clause 52.3 of the agreement (Annexure-P/2). Subsequent to the termination of the contract, the petitioner’s final dues were not released. The respondent authorities, vide letter dated 05.12.2024, called upon the petitioner to appear on 10.12.2024 for final settlement, wherein it was admitted that a sum of ₹12,60,130/- was payable to the petitioner (Annexure-P/3). Despite the petitioner’s 4 proprietor being present on the scheduled date and making several representations thereafter, the respondents have unjustifiably delayed the release of the admitted amount for more than one year, on one pretext or another. Hence the present writ petition for procuring the final payable dues by the respondent authorities. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the non- payment of the petitioner’s admitted final dues by the respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal, and without authority of law. Despite termination of the contract, which the petitioner accepted without prejudice, the respondents are bound to release payment for the work already executed. The petitioner, a reputed civil construction firm, has suffered severe financial hardship due to the respondents’ inaction, including mounting loan liabilities and the risk of accounts turning NPA. The respondents have themselves acknowledged the difficulties faced by the petitioner in a naxal-affected area, yet have willfully withheld the payable amount, compelling the petitioner to run from pillar to post. Such conduct is violative of the petitioner’s constitutional and legal rights and warrants immediate intervention by this Hon’ble Court. As such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned 5 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. 6. We have learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. 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. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Grid Corpornation 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 6 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 7 civil court as it was done in OJC No. 5229 of 1995." (emphasis supplied) 9. 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 8 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) 10. 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." 11. 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 9 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." 12. 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, 10 the Court may relegate the party to the remedy by way of a civil suit." (emphasis supplied) 13. 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. 14. From perusal of the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to the respondent no. 2 to 4 to make final payment of Rs. 12,60,130/- with interest @ 18% per annum on delayed payment. The petitioner has also prayed for damages and compensation for unreasonable delay in issuing compensation and reissuing new tender. 15. In the instant case, the relief of delay to make final payment 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. 16. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, further considering the disputed questions of law involved in this writ petition, the relief sought by the petitioner 11 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. 17. 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/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika