NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3157 of 2026 Puranik Brothers Consulting Engineers Through Its Sole Proprietor Nitin Purushottam Puranik, S/o Purushottam Puranik, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 110, New Ramdaspeth, Bansiraj, Kachipura, Shankar Nagar, District Nagpur, Maharashtra, Pin- 440010 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Municipal Council Kumhari, District Durg Through Chief Municipal Officer, Office Of The Municipal Council Kumhari, District- Durg, C.G. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Additional Secretary Urban Administration And Development Department, Having Its Office At Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 492002 3 - State Urban Development Authority Through Its Chief Executive Officer, 4th Floor, D Block, Indravati Bhavan (Hod Building), Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh, 492002 4 - Amrut Mission Through Project Manager, Having Its Office At 4th Floor, D Block, Indravati Bhavan (Hod Building), Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh, 492002 ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Shri Siddharth Dubey, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri Praveen Das, Addl AG For Respondent-1/Municipal Council : Shri Dhiraj Wankhede, Advocate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.06.30 11:01:29 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29.06.2026 Heard Shri Siddharth Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also Heard Shri Praveen Das, learned Addl AG and Shri Dhiraj Wankhede, learned counsel for the Municipal Council, Kumhari. 1. Petitioner has filed the present petition praying for the following reliefs: “That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue suitable direction(s), order(s) or writ(s) including writ(s) in nature of Mandamus, Certiorari etc: 10.1 To, direct the respondent No.1 and 3 to decide the Representations made by the Petitioner/Proprietorship Firm on 18th April and 24th April 2024 (Annexure P-9 Colly) for payment of requisite dues 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.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 1 issued a RFP (Request for Proposal) Notice regarding selection of the consulting firm for preparation of detailed Project Report and Project Management Consultancy (PMC) for implementation of integrated water augmentation project and installations of STP with Septage Management, 3 Kumhari under the AMRUT Mission at Kumhari. The petitioner participated in the tender process and emerged as the successful bidder. 3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner that on 18.11.2020, the Municipal Council, Kumhari/respondent- 1 issued a letter to the petitioner firm, confirming the work order to proceed for commencement of the PMC work. Thereafter, petitioner firm has worked for almost two years and on 10.02.2023, issued the First and Second running bill to respondent-1. On 10.05.2023, vide its letter having subject- Notice to Proceed for commencement of Project management Consultancy (PMC) for implementation of Integrated Water Augmentation Project at Kumhahi under Amrit Mission, and directed the petitioner firm to deploy the PMC team as per the conditions of the contract. He further stated that the petitioner firm 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. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner from 8th September till 2nd October, 2023, petitioner submitted three running account bills to the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal council, Kumhari and respondent No. 1, instead of releasing payment, repeatedly addressed communications to the competent authorities seeking allocation of funds for payment of the 4 petitioner's consultancy fees and bills. Finally, vide letter dated 01.03.2024, respondent-1 terminated the work order of the petitioner firm stating that the State/SUDA has not given the consent to the work order and the work order is terminated immediately. 5. Petitioner firm made several representations dated 11.03.2024 and 04.04.2024 requesting to pay outstanding payment of Rs.84,55,476/- and balance amount of DPR of Rs.22,91,195/- for release of the outstanding consultancy charges. Due to the non-action by the respondent authorities and facing the adverse situation created henceforth with respect to release of payment, unlocking of the rook and non-action on the letter dated 18.04.2024, petitioner firm sent First Legal Notice dated 24.06.2024 to the respondent-1 either to recall the cancellation of PMC services and open the lock and to clear the outstanding bills that have been sent by the petitioner firm. However, no payment has been released till date. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further draws attention of this Court that the inability of respondent-1 to pay the PMC fees created financial exigencies in the petitioner firm and as a result, the petitioner was unable to carry out the allotted work in a proper and systematic manner. The amount claimed by the petitioner fir is not at all disputed by any of the respondents as is clear from the letters exchanged ;between them and also the Work Order states the same amount. 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 5 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 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. 6 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 representations made by the petitioner firm on 18th and 24th April, 2024 (Annexure P-9 colly), seeking release of the outstanding payment of Rs.84,55,476/- and balance of Rs.22,91,195/- against DPR, 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 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 7 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. 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. 8 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/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika