Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that petitions involving disputed questions of fact are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a government contractor seeking release of final bill payments, holding that such matters must be adjudicated through appropriate alternate legal remedies. The Court further granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue other remedies available under law. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The writ petition was filed by a registered Class-C contractor engaged in public works projects for Nagar Panchayat, Bodla, District Kabirdham. The petitioner sought relief in the form of direction to the respondents, particularly the Chief Municipal Officer, to release payments for completed works including construction of CC roads, drains, and buildings. The petitioner contended that final bills had been submitted, but payment was withheld due to non-submission of royalty clearance certificates pertaining to minor minerals.

Also Read: Supreme Court Revises Working Hours | No More 2nd And 4th Saturday Closures From July 14

According to the petitioner, Clause 35 of the Form-A Agreement under the Public Works Department governed the terms of royalty on minor minerals. The clause stipulated that if a contractor fails to produce a royalty clearance certificate within 30 days of submission of the final bill, the royalty amount deducted and held in deposit shall be remitted to the concerned department, and the remaining payment shall be released.

The petitioner submitted that, in line with this clause, deductions were already made from his bills towards royalty, and therefore the remaining payment ought to be disbursed. He relied on earlier orders passed by the High Court in WPC No. 1818 of 2016 and WPS No. 1756 of 2022, which directed authorities to either deduct the royalty or act upon the contractor’s representation and release the balance amount.

The petitioner further argued that delay in payment was arbitrary and contrary to the contractual terms, and amounted to violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He claimed that repeated representations had been made to the authorities, particularly Respondent No. 4 (Chief Municipal Officer), seeking release of dues, but no payment was made despite deductions of royalty being effected.

In response, the State, through the learned Advocate General, opposed the maintainability of the petition. It was argued that the writ petition raised disputed questions of fact—particularly on the issue of royalty deductions and production of clearance certificates—which could not be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction. The State relied on multiple Supreme Court precedents to support its argument that such disputes, especially those rooted in contractual obligations, are best resolved in civil courts or through other appropriate forums and not under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The matter was heard on June 19, 2025. The Court considered the submissions of both parties and the cited judgments before proceeding to deliver its decision.

The Court recorded that, “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.”

Citing binding precedent, the Division Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Sukamani Das, noting: “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 Bench further stated: “The High Court has not and could not have held that the disputes in these cases were raised for the sake of raising them and that there was no substance therein.”

In S.P.S. Rathore v. State of Haryana, the Court recorded, “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.”

Quoting from Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam, the Court observed: “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.”

The Bench also relied on Union of India v. Puna Hinda, recording: “The dispute could not be raised by way of a writ petition on the disputed questions of fact... such process could be undertaken only by the agreed forum i.e. arbitration and not by the writ court.”

Finally, the Court referred to M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India (P) Ltd., noting: “While there is no prohibition in the writ court even deciding disputed questions of fact... the Court may relegate the party to the remedy by way of a civil suit.”

Summing up the legal position, the Court stated: “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.”

The Court, upon consideration of the submissions advanced by the counsel for both parties, and in view of the disputed questions of fact involved in the present writ petition, held that it would not be appropriate to entertain the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It was recorded that the petitioner sought relief for compensation and payment of dues, which were contingent upon resolution of contested factual issues—specifically, whether the royalty clearance certificate was required or if deductions had been properly made in line with Clause 35 of the agreement. The Court held that such matters cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction.

Also Read: Gauhati HC Quashes Forgery Case Against Cardiologist Under Section 482 CrPC | Holds No Mens Rea In Posthumous Report Corrections And Finds No Prima Facie Offence

The Bench concluded that, “we do not find any good ground to entertain these writ petitions.” It accordingly dismissed the writ petition as being devoid of merit. However, the Court clarified that the petitioner is at liberty to avail alternate legal remedies for redressal of the grievances.

“Accordingly, the present writ petitions being devoid of merit are liable to be and are 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).”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate

For the Respondents/State: Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General

Case Title: Jay Maa Construction Through Proprietor Radhe Lal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:25557-DB

Case Number: WPC No. 3016 of 2025

Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

[Read/Download order]