2026:CGHC:24590-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2899 of 2026 M/s Ramesh Kumar Jain A Proprietorship Firm Having Its Office At Main Road, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, (Chhattisgarh) Through Its Proprtieor Mr. Ramesh Kumar Jain ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Telecommunications Consultant India Limited (A Government Of India Enterprises) C I L Bhawan, Greater Kailash - , New Delhi Pin No. 110048 2 - The Project Director, Project Office L-25, Anupam Nagar, Near T.V. Tower Raipur (C.G.) Pin -492007 ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Nikhil Parakh, Advocate For Respondents : None appears --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18.06.2026 Heard Shri Nikhil Parakh, learned counsel for the petitioner. 1. Petitioner has filed the present petition for the following reliefs:- “I. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to release and refund amount of Rs.7,85,411/- along with 18% interest PA from the date of accrual i.e.30.06.2007 till actual realization in favour of Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.06.23 11:59:21 +0530 Wpc 2899 of 2026 2 the petitioner, as the same stands duly verified and admitted which is never disputed by the State authorities. II. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to deposit the admitted amount before this Hon’ble Court as an interim order or release a substantial portion thereof during pendency of the present petition. III. 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.” 2. The Petitioner is a contractor who was awarded and duly executed the entire work under a package of the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY). A Notice Inviting Tender was floated by Telecommunications Consultants India Limited (TCIL) on 04.04.2006 for construction of road works under the said PMGSY package, pursuant to which a work order was issued in favour of the Petitioner. Thereafter, an agreement was executed between the parties on 12.07.2006. The Petitioner completed the entire work in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and handed over the same to the Respondents. However, despite completion of the work, the Respondent authorities have failed to issue the completion certificate till date. The Respondents have taken possession of the work executed by the Petitioner and have also released part payments from time to time, thereby unequivocally accepting and enjoying the benefits arising from the work performed by the Petitioner. Having accepted the completed work and derived benefit Wpc 2899 of 2026 3 therefrom, the Respondents are stopped from denying their obligation to release and refund the Petitioner's security deposit and performance guarantee. The continued withholding of the said amounts is arbitrary, illegal and unjustified, particularly when the work stood completed as far back as the year 2007. The Petitioner served a legal notice dated 23.01.2026 upon the Respondents calling upon them to refund the security deposit and performance guarantee and to discharge their contractual obligations. However, the Respondents neither responded to nor complied with the said notice. The failure of the Respondents to refund the admitted dues constitutes a continuing cause of action, which persists from day to day. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any efficacious alternative remedy, the Petitioner has been constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action of the respondent authorities caused mental agony and financial hardship to the petitioner as the subject work has already been completed by 30.06.2007. The respondents have taken possession of the road but failed to issue the completion certificate till date without there being any dispute with regard to execution implementation, quality and quantity of work done by the petitioner. Petitioner vide its various letters/representations requested to issue the completion certificate for the work completed by the petitioner and to refund the security deposit but the respondents have not responded. It is further submitted that Wpc 2899 of 2026 4 petitioner even after successfully completion of the entire work within minimal extended period with certain amount of extra work, still awaiting the completion certificate and refund of security deposit and performance guarantee, though the maintenance period was over in the year 2012. After fighting for years, finally legal notice was issued to the respondents on 23.01.2026. Even after the expiry of the period stipulated in the legal notice, respondents neither replied nor complied with the demand made by the petitioner in the said notice, which is deliberate inaction and negligence on the part of respondents. Petitioner, thus seeking appropriate direction for release of dues pending in his favour. As such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 4. We have learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the petition. 5. 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. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Grid Corporation 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: Wpc 2899 of 2026 5 "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 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 Wpc 2899 of 2026 6 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) 7. 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 observing that, it should not be understood that in every case of tortious liability, recourse must be had to a suit. Wpc 2899 of 2026 7 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) 8. 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." 9. 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 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 Wpc 2899 of 2026 8 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." 10. 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, the Court may relegate the party to the remedy by way of a civil suit." (emphasis supplied) 11. 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 Wpc 2899 of 2026 9 remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be proper. 12. From perusal of the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to release and refund amount of Rs.7,85,411/- along with 18% interest PA from the date of accrual i.e.30.06.2007 till the actual realization, in favor of the petitioner, as the same stands duly verified and admitted which is never disputed by the respondents. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to deposit the admitted amount before this Court as and interim measure, or, release a substantial portion thereof, during pendency of the present petition. 13. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the documents available on record, and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court finds that the petitioner was awarded the work under the PMGSY package pursuant to the tender floated by TCIL and an agreement dated 12.07.2006 was executed between the parties. Although the petitioner asserts that the work was completed and handed over to the respondents and that the security deposit and performance guarantee are liable to be refunded, the entitlement to such refund is founded upon the terms and conditions of the contract and is disputed by the respondents. The record does not contain any completion certificate or final discharge certificate issued by the competent authority conclusively establishing fulfilment of all contractual obligations by the petitioner. Equally, the circumstances in which the security deposit and performance guarantee have continued to be retained, and the Wpc 2899 of 2026 10 corresponding rights and liabilities of the parties, require examination of contractual provisions and adjudication on disputed questions of fact. Such issues cannot be satisfactorily determined in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution on the basis of affidavits alone. The petitioner's claim is essentially contractual in nature and does not involve the enforcement of any undisputed statutory or public law obligation. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the dispute raised by the petitioner is not amenable to adjudication in writ jurisdiction and is more appropriately required to be agitated before the forum competent to adjudicate contractual claims on the basis of evidence. 14. 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. 15. 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 padma