1 2026:CGHC:24535-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2601 of 2026 Puranik Brothers Consulting Engineers Through Its Sole Proprietor Nitin Purushottam Puranik, S/o Purushottam Puranik, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Plot No. 110, New Ramdaspeth, Bansiraj, Kachipura, Shankar Nagar, Distt. Nagpur, Maharashtra, Pin 440010. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Municipal Corporation Jagadalpur Through Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur, Having Its Office At Nagar Palik Nigam Near Indira Priyadasrhani Stadium Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar Chhattisgarh 494001. 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Urban Administration And Development Department, Having Its Office At 4th Floor, Block D, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, C.G. 492002. 3. Director Urban Administration And Development Department Having Its Office At 4th Floor, Block D, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, C.G. 492002. 4. State Urban Development Authority Through Its Chief Executive Officer, 4th Floor, D Block, Indravati Bhavan (Hod Building), Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh, 492002. 5. Amrut Mission Through Its Mission Director, Having Its Office At 4th Floor, D Block, Indravati Bhawan, (Hod Building), Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 492002. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.06.19 17:40:27 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 To, direct the respondent No. 1/Commissioner Municipal Corporation Jagdalpur to decide the representation made by the petitioner (Proprietorship) Firm on 27.11.2025 (Annexure P/12) with respect to payment of requisite dues of the Consultancy fees to the tune of Rs. 1,58,40,000/- as expeditiously as possible. Preferably within a period of 4 weeks from the date of disposal of the present petition. 10.2 Grant any other relief(s) and/or pass any such order(s) that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 1 floated Tender No. 115677 dated 28.11.2022 for appointment of a Project Management Consultant (PMC) for implementation of the balance work of the Water Supply Scheme under the AMRUT Mission at Jagdalpur. The petitioner participated in the tender process and emerged as the successful bidder. 3 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner that the Mayor-in-Council, Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur, vide Resolution No. 11 dated 17.03.2023, approved the selection of the Petitioner as PMC, being the lowest bidder. Thereafter, a Letter of Acceptance dated 31.03.2023 was issued in favour of the Petitioner approving consultancy fees of Rs. 1,58,40,000/-. Subsequently, a Consultancy Agreement was executed on 01.04.2023 and a work order was issued on 11.04.2023. He further stated that the petitioner duly commenced and performed the consultancy services in terms of the agreement and raised running bills from time to time. Despite receipt of the bills, respondent No. 1, instead of releasing payment, repeatedly addressed communications to the competent authorities seeking allocation of funds for payment of the petitioner's consultancy fees. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner made several representations dated 19.12.2023, 10.05.2024, 27.05.2024, 04.10.2024, 24.10.2024 and lastly on 27.11.2025 requesting release of the outstanding consultancy charges. However, no payment has been released till date. He further draws attention to the communication dated 30.12.2024 issued by respondent No. 1 to the Chief Executive Officer, SUDA, wherein it was specifically acknowledged that the petitioner had been duly appointed as PMC, consultancy bills had already been submitted and payment could not be made only due to non-availability of funds and pendency of arbitration proceedings involving the executing contractor. It is submitted that the said communication clearly establishes that the 4 Petitioner's entitlement and the liability of the Respondents are admitted and undisputed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that once the services have been rendered pursuant to a valid contract and the dues stand acknowledged by the respondents themselves, payment cannot be withheld indefinitely on the ground of lack of funds or pendency of disputes with a third party. The petitioner has been made to suffer severe financial hardship despite having fully discharged its contractual obligations. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel places reliance upon Surya Constructions v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2019) 16 SCC 794, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that admitted contractual dues cannot be withheld by the State or its instrumentalities on administrative or financial grounds. It is submitted that the ratio of the said judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He would contend that the dispute raised by the petitioner emanates from a contractual arrangement entered into between the parties and relates to alleged non-payment of consultancy fees. It is submitted that determination of the petitioner's entitlement to the amount claimed, the extent of work executed, fulfillment of contractual obligations and the liability of the respondents are all questions which require factual 5 adjudication and appreciation of evidence. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is further submitted that merely seeking a direction for disposal of a representation cannot be permitted to convert a contractual dispute into a writ proceeding. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The principal grievance of the petitioner relates to non-payment of consultancy fees allegedly payable under a Consultancy Agreement executed between the parties. Though the relief sought in the present writ petition is confined to a direction to respondent No. 1 to decide the representation dated 27.11.2025, the representation itself seeks release of consultancy charges amounting to Rs. 1,58,40,000/- arising out of the contractual relationship between the parties. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) & Others v. Sukamani Das (Smt.) & Another, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 298; S.P.S. Rathore v. State of Haryana & Others, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 1; Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 562; Union of India v. Puna Hinda, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 690; and M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India (P) Ltd., reported in (2023) 2 SCC 703, has consistently held that where adjudication of disputed questions of fact is required, particularly in contractual matters, the High Court should ordinarily refrain from 6 exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and relegate the parties to the remedies available under law. 11. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surya Constructions (supra). However, in the considered opinion of this Court, the said decision does not advance the case of the petitioner in the facts of the present matter. The claim raised by the petitioner arises out of a contract and determination of the entitlement of the petitioner to the amount claimed would necessarily require examination of factual issues concerning the contractual obligations and liability of the parties. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment is distinguishable on facts. 12. From the pleadings and documents placed on record, it is evident that the dispute raised by the petitioner is essentially contractual in nature. The question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the amount claimed and whether the respondents are liable to release the same cannot be adjudicated without examining factual aspects arising out of the contract. Such an exercise falls beyond the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Merely because the petitioner has couched the relief in the form of a prayer for consideration of a representation would not alter the true nature of the dispute. The representation itself seeks redressal of a contractual claim. A direction to decide such representation would, in effect, require consideration of issues which are intrinsically linked to the contractual rights and obligations of the parties. 7 14. In view of the nature of the dispute involved and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to avail such other remedies as may be available under law for redressal of its grievance. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan