1 CGHC010179932026 2026:CGHC:29926-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2290 of 2026 M/s 02 Planetarium Through Its Proprietor Smt. Uma Mishra W/o Mahesh Prasad Mishra Aged About 68 Years, Address- 1st Floor, 82, Jairam Complex, Great Eastern Road, Sharda Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Collector, District- Sarguja (C.G.) 2 - Director Public Education, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Mantralay, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The District Education Officer Ambikapur , Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 15/07/2026 1. Heard Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.07.20 19:25:36 +0530 2 appearing fo the respondents/State. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling in question the legality and validity of the order dated 20.03.2026 passed by respondent No.1–Collector, Surguja rejecting the petitioner's representations and the consequential communication dated 23.03.2026 issued by respondent No.3–District Education Officer directing refund of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), whereby the respondents declined to proceed with implementation of the Work Order dated 27.12.2023 relating to installation of a Mobile Planetarium in District Surguja. 3. The petitioner is a sole proprietorship concern engaged in installation and customization of mobile planetarium systems. Pursuant to the Expression of Interest dated 20.09.2023 floated by respondent No.3 for installation of a mobile planetarium, the petitioner participated in the tender process, was declared the successful (L-1) bidder and consequently a Work Order dated 27.12.2023 was issued in its favour followed by execution of an agreement of the same date for a total contract value of ₹46,02,000/-. According to the petitioner, after procuring and customizing the planetarium system in accordance with the contractual specifications, it approached the office of respondent No.3 on 05.01.2024 and thereafter again on 29.01.2024 for delivery, installation and training; however, the respondents allegedly refused to accept delivery. The petitioner thereafter submitted representations dated 29.01.2024 and 06.02.2026 seeking implementation of the contract. 3 4. Since no decision was taken, the petitioner earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.882 of 2026, which was disposed of on 26.02.2026 directing respondent No.1 to consider and decide the petitioner's representations. In purported compliance thereof, respondent No.1 passed the order dated 20.03.2026 rejecting the petitioner's claim mainly on the ground that the contractual obligations had not been fulfilled within the stipulated period and that no budgetary provision was available under the concerned head. Consequentially, respondent No.3 issued communication dated 23.03.2026 directing return of the petitioner's Earnest Money Deposit. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order has been passed in complete disregard of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.882 of 2026, inasmuch as respondent No.1 failed to consider the petitioner's detailed representations dated 29.01.2024 and 06.02.2026 and proceeded on wholly irrelevant considerations. It is argued that the respondents themselves refused to accept delivery of the customized mobile planetarium on 05.01.2024 as well as on 29.01.2024, despite the petitioner's readiness and willingness to perform its contractual obligations. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be blamed for non-completion of the work and the respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong. 6. It is further contended that the ground of non-availability of funds is wholly arbitrary and cannot be a valid justification to avoid performance of a concluded government contract. Learned counsel submits that the 4 petitioner had incurred substantial expenditure in procuring and customizing the equipment exclusively for District Surguja and the respondents, having entered into a binding contract, are estopped from resiling therefrom. Reliance has been placed upon ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553, Vice Chairman & Managing Director, CIDCO v. Shishir Realty Private Limited, and other decisions to contend that State authorities are bound to act fairly even in contractual matters and arbitrary State action is amenable to judicial review under Article 226. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the dispute raised by the petitioner arises purely out of the terms and conditions of a commercial contract and involves disputed questions of fact relating to performance of reciprocal contractual obligations, which cannot conveniently be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioner seeks enforcement of contractual rights, which ordinarily falls within the domain of civil proceedings and not constitutional remedies. 8. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 has duly complied with the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition by considering the petitioner's representations and passing a reasoned order. Merely because the decision is adverse to the petitioner would not render the same illegal. It is argued that no public law element survives in the present dispute and the petitioner, if so advised, is at liberty to avail appropriate civil remedies available under law for enforcement of any alleged contractual claim. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be 5 dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record annexed with the petition with utmost circumspection. 10. The main grievance of the petitioner is directed against the order dated 20.03.2026 passed by respondent No.1 rejecting the petitioner's representations and the consequential communication dated 23.03.2026 issued by respondent No.3. However, the substance of the relief sought in the present writ petition is a direction to the respondents to honour and specifically perform the Work Order dated 27.12.2023 and the Agreement executed pursuant thereto by accepting delivery of the customized mobile planetarium system and implementing the contractual obligations. Thus, the controversy essentially arises out of reciprocal contractual rights and obligations flowing from a concluded non-statutory contract. 11. It is well settled that although the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is wide, the same is essentially discretionary. Ordinarily, this Court does not exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction for enforcement of contractual obligations, particularly where adjudication of disputed questions of fact relating to performance, breach of reciprocal promises or consequential contractual rights is involved. 12. In Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien E. Kalathil, (2000) 6 SCC 293, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :- “10. ….. The interpretation and implementation of 6 a clause in a contract cannot be the subject- matter of a writ petition. Whether the contract envisages actual payment or not is a question of construction of contract. If a term of a contract is violated, ordinarily the remedy is not the writ petition under Article 226. We are also unable to agree with the observations of the High Court that the contractor was seeking enforcement of a statutory contract. A contract would not become statutory simply because it is for construction of a public utility and it has been awarded by a statutory body. We are also unable to agree with the observation of the High Court that since the obligations imposed by the contract on the contracting parties come within the purview of the Contract Act, that would not make the contract statutory. Clearly, the High Court fell into an error in coming to the conclusion that the contract in question was statutory in nature. 13. The same principle has also been reiterated in State of U.P. v. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd., (1996) 6 SCC 22, wherein the Supreme Court held that disputes relating to interpretation of contractual terms and enforcement of contractual obligations are ordinarily to be adjudicated through civil proceedings. 14. The legal position has been comprehensively explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 728, wherein, after considering the earlier decisions including ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553, Bridge & Roof Co., Kerala State Electricity Board, and Noble Resources Ltd. 7 v. State of Orissa, the Court held that :- “69. ….. there is no absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition even in contractual matters or where there are disputed questions of fact or even when monetary claim is raised. At the same time, discretion lies with the High Court which under certain circumstances, it can refuse to exercise. It also follows that under the following circumstances, "normally", the Court would not exercise such discretion: 69.1. The Court may not examine the issue unless the action has some public law character attached to it. xxx 69.3. If there are very serious disputed questions of fact which are of complex nature and require oral evidence for their determination.” 15. In Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar, (1977) 3 SCC 457, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that while Article 14 obligations apply to State action at the stage of entering into a contract, once the State enters into the field of ordinary contract, the rights and obligations of the parties are governed by the terms of the contract. It was further held that where disputed questions of fact require detailed evidence, such matters cannot be conveniently adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226. 16. Recently, in Tata Motors Limited v. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) & Others, Civil Appeal No.3897 of 2023, decided on 19.05.2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that although State action in contractual matters is amenable to judicial review, Courts must exercise great restraint while exercising 8 jurisdiction under Article 226 and ordinarily should not interfere in contractual or commercial matters unless arbitrariness, mala fides, bias or irrationality is clearly established. The Court further observed that award and performance of government contracts are essentially commercial matters and judicial review should be exercised only where overwhelming public interest so demands, and not for adjudication of private contractual disputes. 17. The decision relied upon by the petitioner in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553, also does not carry the petitioner's case any further. In the said decision itself, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that though a writ petition may be maintainable in an appropriate contractual matter involving State action, exercise of such jurisdiction remains discretionary and ordinarily should not be invoked where adjudication requires examination of complicated or disputed questions of fact. Thus, the said judgment recognizes an exception and not the general rule. 18. In the present case, it is not in dispute that pursuant to the order dated 26.02.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.882 of 2026, respondent No.1 has considered the petitioner's representations and passed a reasoned order dated 20.03.2026. The grievance of the petitioner is essentially that the reasons assigned by the Collector are erroneous and contrary to the terms of the agreement. Whether the petitioner had duly tendered performance on 05.01.2024 and 29.01.2024, whether the respondents unjustifiably refused to accept delivery, whether time was the essence of the contract, whether either party committed breach of 9 the contractual obligations and whether the petitioner is entitled to enforcement of the contract or any consequential relief are all matters requiring appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, which cannot appropriately be undertaken in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also assailed the impugned order on the ground that the respondents could not have declined implementation of the contract on the plea of non-availability of funds. This Court is not inclined to examine the correctness or otherwise of the said reason in the present proceedings. Whether the reasons assigned by the respondents are legally sustainable and whether the petitioner is entitled to enforce the contract despite such reasons are questions intrinsically connected with the parties' reciprocal contractual rights and liabilities. Such issues are more appropriately adjudicated before the competent civil forum on the basis of evidence and the contractual terms governing the parties. 20. Merely because one of the contracting parties is the State or its instrumentalities does not convert every contractual dispute into a public law dispute. The relief sought by the petitioner is essentially enforcement of contractual obligations arising out of a concluded contract. The petitioner has not demonstrated violation of any statutory provision or infringement of any constitutional right independent of the contract so as to warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 21. In view of the foregoing discussion and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar, 10 (1977) 3 SCC 457, State of U.P. v. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd., (1996) 6 SCC 22, Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien E. Kalathil, (2000) 6 SCC 293, ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553, Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 728, and Tata Motors Limited v. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) & Others, Civil Appeal No.3897 of 2023, decided on 19.05.2023, this Court is of the considered opinion that the controversy raised in the present writ petition essentially pertains to enforcement of reciprocal contractual rights and obligations arising out of a concluded non-statutory contract and involves disputed questions of fact which cannot appropriately be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contractual claims of the parties. All questions relating to alleged breach of contract, specific performance, damages, compensation or any other contractual relief are left open to be agitated before the competent forum, if so advised, in accordance with law. 23. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved