1 2026:CGHC:24844-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2946 of 2026 Smt. Poonambala Jaiswal W/o Late Anil Kumar Jaisawal Aged About 59 Years Resident Of S-33, Avanti Vihar Sector -2 Raipur Post Office And Police Station Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Being The Widow And Legal Heir Of Late Anil Kumar Jaisawal) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Ms. Brijmohan Agrawal Through Its Proprietor Mr Brijmohan Agrawal A-5 Registered Contractor P.O. Lakhanpur District- Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Naya Raipur District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Chief Engineer Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna Chhatisgarh Rural Road Development Agency Civil Lines Raipur District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Chief Executice Officer Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency Civil Lines Raipur District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Executive Engineer Cum Member Secretary Project Implementation Unit No.2 Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna Sakti District- Janjgir- Champa (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Swamy, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 / State : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19 . 06 .202 6 1. Heard Mr. Vivek Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 2 to 5. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs : “I That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to release the admitted and ESC-recommended 29,73,700/- along with 12% interest with monthly compound rest from the date of accrual i.e. 30.05.2008 till actual realization in favor of the petitioner directly, as the same stands duly verified and admitted by the State authorities. II. That this Hon'ble Court may further direct payment of interest at the same rate mentioned in clause 4.5 of the special conditions of contract being commercial terms set out by the Respondents prevail over the general conditions, since 30.05.2008 till actual realization, to compensate the petitioner for the inordinate delay in making the admitted payment of Principal amount and deprive the Petitioner from the legitimate payment for more than 18 long years. III. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to deposit the admitted amount along with interest claimed till the disposal of the present writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court as an interim order and release a substantial portion thereof during pendency of the present petition. 3 IV. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to award costs of the present proceedings and pass such further orders as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. An affidavit in support of the petition is filed herewith.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the widow and legal heir of Late Shri Anil Kumar Jaiswal, a registered contractor who had been engaged as a petty contractor by respondent No.1 for execution of road construction works under PMGSY, namely Package Nos. CG-09-11 and CG-09-30 in District Kabirdham. The total contract value of the two packages was Rs.4,93,31,000/-, out of which 25% of the work was allegedly sublet to the petitioner's husband through an internal arrangement supported by a Power of Attorney dated 02.06.2006. According to the petitioner, Late Shri Anil Kumar Jaiswal undertook and completed the entire execution of the allotted works on behalf of respondent No.1 and completion certificates were issued by the competent authorities on 30.05.2008. Out of the amount payable towards the sublet work, a sum of Rs.92,30,480/- was paid to the petitioner's husband, while the balance amount remained unpaid. It is the case of the petitioner that after detailed scrutiny, an Empowered Committee constituted by the State Government recommended and approved payment of Rs.29,73,700/- in favour of the petitioner's husband. Despite such recommendation and repeated representations made by the petitioner's husband during his lifetime and thereafter by the petitioner, the said amount has not been released. The 4 petitioner's husband expired on 29.04.2016 and thereafter the petitioner has been pursuing the matter as his legal heir. A legal notice dated 28.02.2026 was also served upon the respondents seeking release of the admitted dues along with interest, but no action was taken, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's husband had executed the works entrusted to him as petty contractor to the complete satisfaction of the department and the same is evident from the completion certificates issued by the competent authorities. It is contended that the respondents have enjoyed the benefit of the completed works but have illegally withheld the balance amount payable to the petitioner's husband. Learned counsel further submits that after due verification and scrutiny, the Empowered Committee constituted by the State Government approved payment of Rs.29,73,700/- towards the work executed by the petitioner's husband. Once the liability stood admitted and quantified by the competent committee, there remained no justification for withholding the amount for several years. It is argued that the continued non-payment of the admitted dues is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The respondents cannot retain the petitioner's legitimate dues indefinitely after accepting and utilizing the work executed by the petitioner's husband. Learned counsel would further submit that despite repeated 5 representations, requests and legal notice dated 28.02.2026, the respondents have failed to release the amount or assign any valid reason for withholding the same. The petitioner, being the widow and legal heir of the deceased contractor, has been compelled to suffer severe financial hardship due to the inaction of the respondents. Accordingly, it is prayed that the respondents be directed to release the admitted amount of Rs.29,73,700/- along with appropriate interest and all consequential benefits. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State respondents opposes the writ petition and submits that the claim raised by the petitioner arises out of a contractual arrangement between the original contractor and the alleged petty contractor, and the petitioner cannot seek enforcement of such private contractual arrangement in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that there was no direct contractual relationship between the State authorities and the petitioner's husband. The work was allotted to respondent No.1, who was the original contractor, and any internal arrangement or subletting between the original contractor and the petitioner's husband was a matter between them. Therefore, the State cannot be held liable for payment of any amount allegedly due under such private arrangement. Learned counsel further submits that the recommendation of the Empowered Committee does not create any enforceable right in favour of the petitioner, particularly when the contractual liabilities and claims are subject to verification, 6 contractual conditions and approval by the competent authority. The petitioner cannot claim the said amount merely on the basis of the alleged recommendation. It is further contended that the dispute involves disputed questions of fact relating to the alleged sub-contract, execution of work, entitlement of payment, and liability amongst the parties, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has an appropriate remedy under the ordinary law, if so advised. It is, therefore, submitted that no case of violation of any statutory or constitutional right is made out against the State authorities and the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the claim raised by the petitioner essentially arises out of an arrangement between respondent No.1, who was the original contractor, and Late Shri Anil Kumar Jaiswal, the husband of the petitioner, who is alleged to have executed the work as a petty contractor. The petitioner seeks a direction against the State authorities for release of an amount of Rs.29,73,700/- along with interest, claiming that the said amount was approved by the Empowered Committee. The admitted position is that the work contracts under Package Nos. CG-09-11 and CG-09-30 were awarded by the State authorities to respondent No.1, who was the successful bidder. There is no material on record to demonstrate the existence of any direct contractual relationship between the State 7 authorities and the petitioner's deceased husband. The alleged arrangement of subletting 25% of the work and the subsequent authorization through Power of Attorney dated 02.06.2006 were private arrangements between the original contractor and the petitioner's husband. Therefore, the liability of the State authorities to make direct payment to the petitioner cannot be determined merely on the basis of such private arrangement. 7. It is well settled that contractual disputes, particularly those involving disputed questions of fact, cannot ordinarily be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Radhakrishna Agarwal & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (1977) 3 SCC 457, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once parties enter into a contractual relationship, the rights and obligations arising therefrom are governed by the terms of the contract and ordinarily cannot be enforced through writ jurisdiction. 8. Similarly, in State of Bihar & Ors. v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd., (2002) 1 SCC 216, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a writ petition is not an appropriate remedy for enforcement of contractual obligations and that disputed questions relating to contractual claims are required to be adjudicated through appropriate proceedings. 9. In Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Kurien E. Kalathil & Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 293, the Supreme Court reiterated that interpretation and enforcement of contractual terms cannot ordinarily be undertaken in proceedings under Article 226 of the 8 Constitution, particularly when the dispute requires examination of factual aspects and evidence. 10. In the present case, the petitioner seeks determination of the liability of the State authorities to pay an amount allegedly due under an internal arrangement between the original contractor and the petitioner's husband. The question as to whether the amount recommended by the Empowered Committee creates an enforceable right in favour of the petitioner, whether respondent No.1 had actually received the entire contractual payment, and whether any amount remains payable to the alleged petty contractor are all matters requiring factual adjudication. 11. This Court also finds substance in the contention of the respondents that there is no direct contractual privity between the State authorities and the petitioner's husband. The State had entered into a contract only with respondent No.1. Any dispute regarding payment between the original contractor and the alleged petty contractor would ordinarily be a matter to be resolved between those parties. The State cannot be directed to make payment to a third party in the absence of a statutory obligation or contractual liability. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India & Ors., (2015) 7 SCC 728, while considering the scope of writ jurisdiction in contractual matters, held that although a writ petition is not completely barred in contractual disputes, the High Court should exercise such 9 jurisdiction only in exceptional circumstances where there is an element of public law involved. Where the dispute is purely contractual and involves disputed questions of fact, the parties must be relegated to the appropriate remedy. 13. Further, in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd., (1996) 6 SCC 22, the Supreme Court held that disputes arising out of contractual obligations cannot ordinarily be decided in writ proceedings and the remedy of civil proceedings or arbitration, as available under law, should be pursued. 14. Apart from the above, the claim pertains to works completed in the year 2008, whereas the present writ petition has been filed after an unexplained delay of several years. Though the petitioner has stated that she has been pursuing the matter after the death of her husband, the extraordinary delay in seeking writ relief is also a relevant factor while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 15. The writ jurisdiction is discretionary and equitable in nature. A party approaching the Court after an inordinate delay must satisfactorily explain the delay and establish violation of a subsisting legal right. In State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Bhailal Bhai & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1006, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that though no fixed period of limitation applies to writ proceedings, delay and laches are relevant considerations and relief may be refused where the petitioner approaches the Court belatedly. 10 16. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish any enforceable legal right against the State respondents for direct release of the amount claimed. The dispute is essentially contractual and involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 17. For the reasons stated hereinabove and in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judicial precedents, this Court finds no ground to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. However, dismissal of the present petition shall not preclude the petitioner from availing such other remedy as may be available to her in law for adjudication of her contractual claims against the concerned parties. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra