1 2026:CGHC:5647-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 421 of 2026 Rakesh Kumar Kedia S/o Dulichand Aged About 53 Years R/o 488/11, Behind Phc Hospital, Near Old Bus Stand, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Commissioner, Tribal And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Block-D, Ground Floor, Indravati (Indrawati) Bhawan, Atal Nagar / Nava Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Secretary / Principal Secretary Tribal And Caste Development Department (For Service On The State) Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar / Nava Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal And Welfare / Tribal Development, Department, First Floor, Collectorate Office, (Collectorate Building), Kosabadi / Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector (Tribal Development) Collectorate Building, Iti Chowk / Kosabadi, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.02.03 10:25:56 +0530 2 5 - Executive Engineer / Project Officer (Tribal Developmnet / Pwd) Office At Collectorate District Works Office, Korba, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prasoon Bhadhuri, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 02.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prasoon Bhadhuri, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the Respondents/State. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent Commissioner, Tribal and Caste Development Department,, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh act upon the Assistant Commissioner’s letter dated 03.02.2025 (Annexure-P/1) in the interest of justice. 10.2.That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in 3 the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered government contractor engaged in execution of public works and is aggrieved by the unjustified delay in release of legitimate dues arising out of a construction contract awarded by the Tribal Department, Korba, Chhattisgarh. Pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender dated 14.02.2021 issued by the Office of the Collector (Tribal Development), Korba, the petitioner participated in the tender process and emerged as the successful bidder for the work of construction of a Post-Metric Scheduled Tribe Girls Hostel at Hardi Bazar (Pali). A work order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 10.06.2021 and a formal agreement dated 04.06.2021 was executed, whereby the petitioner undertook to execute the work for a contract price of ₹1,37,85,703/- against a sanctioned estimate of ₹1,90,70,000/-. Upon taking possession of the site, the petitioner found that the site was not levelled and required substantial additional preparation, materially affecting cost and execution. The petitioner promptly informed the respondents and sought directions and sanction for additional works necessitated due to site conditions. The petitioner completed the work faithfully and in accordance with contractual obligations, incurring excess expenditure due to unforeseen and site-specific requirements. The departmental evaluation acknowledged additional work, but payment was released only to the extent of the original contract value, leaving the excess amount unpaid. The construction was physically completed, certified, and handed over to the Department on 4 05.10.2023, and the Completion Certificate and Utilization Certificate were duly issued. Thereafter, the matter was referred by the Assistant Commissioner to the Commissioner, Tribal and Caste Development, seeking sanction for payment beyond the delegated limit. The higher authority acknowledged the issue and directed the Assistant Commissioner to ensure payment of the final installment in accordance with rules. Despite repeated representations and reminders by the petitioner, including the latest representation dated 16.07.2025, the respondents have failed to sanction and release the outstanding dues, resulting in prolonged delay and severe financial hardship to the petitioner, compelling the filing of the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the continued inaction of the respondents in sanctioning and releasing the admitted and quantified dues is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioner, being a bona fide contractor and successful bidder, has fully executed the work in question, which stands completed, certified, and handed over, and all material facts including site-related additional works, departmental assessment, upward referral for sanction, and express direction by the Commissioner dated 22.01.2025 are undisputed and duly borne out from the record. Despite clear acknowledgment of liability and direction for payment by the higher authority, the Assistant Commissioner’s failure to secure and act upon the requisite sanction has resulted in prolonged and unjustified delay, amounting to breach 5 of statutory and contractual duty. The petitioner had a legitimate expectation of timely payment based on completion certificates and administrative communications, and the respondents are estopped from resiling from their own directions. There being no dispute whatsoever regarding execution, necessity, measurement, or quantification of the additional work, the only impediment being a purely procedural and ministerial delay, such inaction cannot be permitted to defeat the petitioner’s substantive and admitted right to payment, especially when it results in unjust enrichment of the State and severe financial prejudice to the petitioner. Hence the present writ petition may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes 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. 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 6 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 7 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) 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 8 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 9 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 report by the 10 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 11 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) 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 Commissioner, Tribal and Caste Development Department, Chhattisgarh to act upon the Assistant Commissioner’s letter dated 03.02.2025 (Annexure-P/1) in the interest of justice. 15.In the instant case, 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 instant writ petition as there are disputed questions of fact involved. 12 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 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