The High Court of Chhattisgarh reaffirms that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not the proper remedy for resolving contractual disputes involving disputed questions of fact, particularly where no statutory duty is involved; parties are relegated to alternate remedies. Existing precedent is upheld, making this a binding authority for all subordinate courts within the state.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPC/1004/2020 of DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED Vs CHHATTISGARH HOUSING BOARD |
| CNR | CGHC010090542020 |
| Date of Registration | 20-03-2020 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Division Bench: Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice & Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts within the State of Chhattisgarh; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court precedent excluding writ jurisdiction on disputed questions of facts in contractual matters |
| Type of Law | Constitutional law (Article 226) and contract law (public contracts) |
| Questions of Law | Whether the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, can adjudicate disputes involving disputed questions of fact in pure contractual matters devoid of any statutory element. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not appropriate for determining disputed questions of fact in contractual disputes, especially those without any statutory flavour. The existence of such factual disputes—like whether work was completed per contract specifications—requires examination of evidence and credibility not possible on affidavits alone. The court relied on multiple Supreme Court authorities establishing that parties must pursue civil remedies (such as arbitration or civil suit) to adjudicate such disputes. Thus, petitions seeking directions or payments based on alleged contractual breaches involving factual disputes are not maintainable in writ. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Established doctrine that the writ court does not engage in trials of fact; examination of evidence and credibility is a function for civil courts/arbitral forums. The public law remedy under Article 226 is not meant for purely private law disputes unless a statutory duty or glaring arbitrariness is present. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The Petitioners (construction contractors) completed residential housing projects under contracts with the Chhattisgarh Housing Board. After issuance of completion certificates and expiry of defect liability periods, the Respondents withheld part of the final payment, citing non-construction of compound walls. Petitioners contended the compound wall construction was not in scope, and approached the High Court for directions to release pending dues and for quashing the withholding communications. The Respondents argued the issue requires factual determination about contractual scope and performance, unsuitable for writ remedy. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in the State of Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Supreme Court |
| Follows | Supreme Court precedents including Chairman GRIDCO v. Sukamani Das (1999), S.P.S. Rathore v. State of Haryana (2005), and others as explicitly cited |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates and applies the principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to resolve contractual claims involving disputed facts, even if the contract is with a government entity and relates to public projects.
- Formally affirms recent and long-standing Supreme Court law, reinforcing litigants’ burden to first establish claims before the appropriate civil forum or arbitration rather than seeking direct intervention of the High Court.
- Useful precedent for state authorities and defense counsel opposing contractual claims in writ; can be cited to seek dismissal where disputes of fact or scope require evidentiary resolution.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court reviews both petitions, noting that the reliefs sought (pending payments, quashing of communications) are premised on disputed factual assertions regarding the contractual scope (specifically, construction of compound walls).
- The court directly applies the Supreme Court’s principle that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked where resolution hinges on disputed questions of fact—especially in pure contractual matters with no statutory overlay.
- The court cites and extracts precedents:
- Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Sukamani Das (1999) holding that tort/liability-related factual disputes are for civil courts.
- S.P.S. Rathore v. State of Haryana (2005), which reiterates that remedy under Article 226 is improper for such facts in dispute.
- Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam (2021), Union of India v. Puna Hinda (2021), and M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India (P) Ltd. (2023), which clarify that alternative (contractually agreed) remedies and factual resolution are necessary.
- The court finds that the key legal issue (scope of contract, entitlement to extra payment) is fact-intensive, not for determination on affidavits or in writ.
- Concludes by dismissing the petitions and reserving liberty to the Petitioners to pursue alternate remedies (civil suit/arbitration).
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Asserted that all contracted works were completed and certified by the Respondents.
- Argued that compound wall construction was not contemplated in the contract, and its non-construction is a vexatious and frivolous ground for withholding payment.
- Sought direction for release of pending dues with interest; relied on M/s Mahavir Coal and Transport v. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., ARBR No. 24 of 2022.
Respondent
- Opposed maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 due to existence of disputed questions of fact not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
- Asserted that payments had been released to the extent of work completed.
- Emphasized that the Petitioners did not raise any formal objection at the stage of final bill settlement regarding the withheld payment for boundary wall.
- Argued that the contract included the construction of boundary walls, which Petitioners failed to execute.
Factual Background
The Chhattisgarh Housing Board awarded contracts to the Petitioners for construction of various categories of residential houses under the Atal Vihar Yojana in Bilaspur and Durg. Formal agreements were executed, contracts completed, and work completion/defect liability certificates issued. Subsequently, the Board withheld final payments, contending that Petitioners failed to construct compound walls allegedly included in the contract. The Petitioners argued the contrary and approached the High Court under Article 226 to direct payment release and for ancillary reliefs.
Statutory Analysis
The Court analyzed Article 226 of the Constitution of India, specifically focusing on the limitations of writ jurisdiction in matters involving private contracts and disputed questions of fact. The Court reiterated the established principle that such jurisdiction is inappropriate where factual controversies, such as the actual scope of the contract, exist and must be proved by evidence.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
None stated; both judges concurred in the reasoning and order.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations or new guidelines indicated in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirmation and direct application of existing Supreme Court jurisprudence limiting writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where disputed questions of fact in contracts exist.