1 2026:CGHC:14003-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5632 of 2025 Surguja Construction And Suppliers Private Limited, Village And Post - Turna Khaspara, Ward No. 03, Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh Through Its Director, Manoj Kumar Rajwade, Aged About 46 Years, S/o Shri Harmans Rajware, R/o Village And Post - Turna Khaspara, Ward No. 03 Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary Department Of School Education, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector (Tribal Development) District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Executive Officer Cum President District Level Departmental Purchase Committee, Zila Panchayat - Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 5 - The Assistant Commissioner Cum Member Secretary District Level Departmental Purchase Committee, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 6 - The Assistant Commissioner Department Of Tribal Welfare, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 2 7 - The Deputy Director District Planning And Statistics, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 8 - The Principal Government Girls Higher Secondary School Kusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 9 - The Principal Government Higher Secondary School Samri, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 10 - The Principal Government Boys Higher Secondary School Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 11 - The Principal Government Higher Secondary School Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 12 - The Principal Government Higher Secondary School Chando, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhat Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Add. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 24.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. Akhat Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “10.1 call for the entire records of the case from the authorities concerned for its kind perusal. 3 10.2 set-aside the orders dated 02.09.2025 (ANNEXURE P-1), issued by the Respondent No.05 & communicated vide letter dated 04.09.2025 (ANNEXURE P-2) by the Respondent No.06, whereby the Respondent No.05 had cancelled the Contract No. GEMC- 511687707936475 Dated 28.01.2025 (ANNEXURE P-3) awarded to the Petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.3 to direct the Respondent authorities to release the payment of Rs. 49,97,500/- submitted by the Petitioner(s) towards 100% payment of the contract dated 28.01.2025, without further delay, in the interest of justice. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper be also awarded.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 02.09.2025, issued by respondent No.05 and communicated vide letter dated 04.09.2025 by respondent No.06, whereby Contract No. 511687707936475 dated 28.01.2025 awarded to the petitioner-company for supply of Solitaire 86-inch display Interactive Panels with CPU and three years warranty (Qty. 05 Nos.) amounting to Rs. 49,97,500/- has been cancelled, is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, particularly when the contract stood fully executed by the petitioner. It is contended that the respondent authorities have acted in gross violation of the contractual terms, as there exists no stipulation permitting cancellation after 100% execution of the work. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities had repeatedly inspected the site during execution and had never raised any 4 objection regarding quality or performance of the equipment. On the contrary, respondents No.08 to 12 had issued due Work Completion Certificates upon verification of the technical specifications and workmanship, which have been arbitrarily ignored by respondents No.05 and 06. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned action is based on erroneous, unsubstantiated and allegedly false technical reports submitted by certain agencies, without affording any proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It is also urged that despite filing applications under the Right to Information Act seeking relevant documents from the Assistant Commissioner (Tribal), no response has been furnished till date. The petitioner has already invested the entire contract value in establishing digital classrooms for Respondents No.08 to 12 and has duly complied with all contractual obligations, including supply of BIS-approved equipment, yet the impugned cancellation has been effected in a wholly arbitrary and unjust manner, warranting interference by this Court. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that this is purely a civil dispute and the petitioner has the remedy to take recourse to the jurisdictional civil court for redressal of his grievance as well as to invoke arbitration clause and as such, this petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. 5 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. The core grievance of the petitioner, as projected in the present writ petition, relates to alleged wrongful cancellation of the contract dated 28.01.2025 and non-payment of the contract amount despite execution of the work, which essentially arises out of a contractual dispute between the parties. 7. It is well settled that disputes relating to enforcement of contractual rights and recovery of contractual dues ordinarily fall within the realm of civil disputes and are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly where disputed questions of fact arise and an efficacious alternative remedy is available. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is primarily intended for enforcement of statutory or constitutional rights and not for adjudication of contractual claims requiring evidentiary examination. 8. In the present case, the petitioner’s entitlement to the claimed amount, the extent of liability of the respondents and the consequences of GeM contractual terms are all matters arising out of contract which may require detailed examination of evidence and contractual provisions. Such adjudication is appropriately within the domain of the competent civil court or any other forum provided under the contract. The petitioner has not demonstrated any exceptional circumstance warranting 6 interference in writ jurisdiction despite availability of alternative remedy. Moreover, the agreement in question provides for an alternative dispute resolution mechanism by way of arbitration, which the petitioner has not availed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law before the competent forum. 10. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim, and all questions are left open to be decided by such forum. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet