The High Court has reaffirmed that where the resolution of a dispute requires adjudication of disputed questions of fact arising out of contract claims, the remedy under Article 226 is not appropriate. Instead, such disputes should be relegated to the civil courts or other alternate forums as agreed in the contract. This judgment follows long-standing Supreme Court precedent and provides binding authority for all subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh dealing with similar contractual payment disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPC/5390/2024 of M/S MOHAN PODDAR ENGINEERS AND BUILDERS Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010355552024 |
| Date of Registration | 23-10-2024 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH SINHA, HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in the State of Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court precedent (see Judgments Relied Upon) |
| Type of Law | Constitutional Law; Law relating to writ jurisdiction and contractual disputes |
| Questions of Law | Whether the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct payment of allegedly admitted contractual dues when disputed facts arise? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court reaffirmed that when adjudication of a claim necessitates resolution of disputed questions of fact, particularly in contractual matters, remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not proper. The Court held that assessing such factual disputes—such as whether payments are admitted or justified—requires evidence and contested fact-finding inappropriate for writ proceedings. The petitioner may pursue alternative remedies, including approaching civil courts or arbitration if contractually agreed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
Disputed questions of facts should not be resolved in writ jurisdiction; contractual disputes involving contested claims should be relegated to civil courts or arbitration as appropriate. The High Court’s jurisdiction is wide but not meant for fact-intensive inquiries in private law contracts. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner completed construction of a Police Training School pursuant to a contract with the State and alleged that the final bill and escalation amounts were wrongfully withheld despite completion and issuance of a completion certificate. The State disputed facts as to the amounts payable. Petitioner sought directions for payment and disciplinary action against officers involved in alleged delay. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and appellate forums considering similar Article 226 writs on contractual factual disputes |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court has categorically reiterated and clarified, with detailed reliance on Supreme Court precedent, that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not a proper remedy where contractual disputes involve disputed questions of fact.
- Petitioners seeking directions for payment of contractual dues must pursue alternative remedies such as suits or arbitration, not writs, where facts are contested.
- The judgment provides a comprehensive collection of the latest Supreme Court authorities on non-maintainability of writ petitions involving disputed facts in contract matters.
- Litigators should carefully assess whether any facts are disputed before filing writ petitions relating to contractual dues; mere completion certificates or claims of “admitted” amounts are insufficient if the State raises contested questions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court extensively cited Supreme Court case law to establish that disputed factual questions cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226, especially in matters arising from contracts not involving statutory obligations.
- The leading case of Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) v. Sukamani Das was quoted to emphasize that facts such as whether payments are “admitted,” or delays are justified require normal evidence-taking, not mere affidavits.
- S.P.S. Rathore v. State of Haryana further carved out an exception only for cases of “negligence on the face of it” or clear infringement of Article 21, neither of which were shown here.
- Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam was cited to reinforce that the High Court should not compare conflicting technical reports and resolve factual differences in writ petitions.
- Union of India v. Puna Hinda and M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India (P) Ltd. clarified that, in the absence of clear admission crystallizing the amount due, such cases must be relegated to contractual forums such as arbitration or civil suits.
- On these principles, the Court held that petitioner’s claims involve factual determinations inappropriate for writ adjudication and dismissed the petition, preserving alternate remedies.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The authorities failed to disburse the final bill and escalation amounts despite successful completion and issuance of a completion certificate.
- The respondents’ withholding of the amounts is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A.
- The Court should direct immediate payment along with interest and consider disciplinary action against responsible officers.
Respondent (State)
- The writ petition is not maintainable as it raises disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in a writ under Article 226.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a contractor, had completed the construction of a Police Training School at Mainpat under a government contract. A completion certificate was issued in January 2014 certifying satisfactory compliance. Despite this, the State Authorities did not release the final bill of ₹38.19 lakhs and escalation amount of ₹75.25 lakhs. Alleging arbitrary and unjustified withholding, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226, seeking writ directions for immediate payment and other consequential relief.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court analyzed the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly regarding its use for enforcing contractual claims.
- The Court referred to constitutional provisions (Articles 14, 226, 300-A) but highlighted that exercise of writ jurisdiction is circumscribed by the presence of disputed factual issues within contractual disputes.
- The judgment emphasized that claims requiring fact-finding are unsuitable for summarily adjudication under Article 226 and are better suited for civil suits or arbitration, per precedent.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or directions are recorded in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows existing Supreme Court law regarding the non-maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226 where disputed questions of fact arise in contractual payment disputes.