Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 WPC No. 3829 of 2025 SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.07.24 10:53:11 +0530 2025:CGHC:35399-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3829 of 2025 Rishabh Enterprises Dantewada, Through Its Proprietor Manju Surana Wife Of Subhash Surana, Aged About 50 Years, R/o H. No. 42, Railway Station Road, Anwarabhatha, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Collector Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat South Bastar Dantewada (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Geedam, District South Bastar Dantewada (Chhattisgarh) 2 WPC No. 3829 of 2025 5 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bhairamgarh, District South Bastar Dantewada Now Beejapur (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Sukma, District South Bastar Dantewada Now Sukma (Chhattisgarh) 7 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Beejapur, District South Bastar Dantewada Now Beejapur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS)
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioner For Respondents/ State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 23.07.2025 1. On repeated calls, none appears nor any representation has been made on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition. 2. Heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for the respondents/ State. 3. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the pending representation of the petitioner and to pay dues amount of Rs. 8,50,000/- with 8% interest from date of 3 WPC No. 3829 of 2025 completion of work to date of payment, within stipulated time, in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 4. Facts of the case in brief, as projected in the writ petition, is that the petitioner is proprietor of the Rishabh Enterprises Dantewada and is running business of government general order supplier, steel furnisher, stationary and computer items and was taken work tender from the respondent authorities under scheme of MGNREGA at several Janpad Panchayat in the year 2010-11 and she had supplied the printing of wages payment slip and was completed work tender order under scheme of MGNREGA as per the terms and condition of the work order tender but the respondent authorities has not paid amount of Rs. 8,50,000/- with respect to the work tender order to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the concerned authorities to pay the due amount of Rs. 8,50,000/- of the work tender order and also moved representation to the respondent authorities to pay the due amount, however, the respondent authorities have not paid a single penny of dues to the petitioner till date, which is completely illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law. Hence this petition. 5. In the petition, the petitioner has raised a ground that the action on the part of the respondent department caused mental agony, 4 WPC No. 3829 of 2025 immense mental trauma and financial hardship, causing irreparable loss to the petitioner and the respondent department has not made any attempt in solving the hindrance. According to the petitioner, despite submitting representation, petitioner has not been received any single penny of amount but the respondent authority has not taken any action towards the issue related to the petitioner, knowing that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned respondents counsel submits that the writ petition as framed and filed is not maintainable as the disputed question of facts cannot be adjudicated in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the respondents/ State and perused the documents appended with writ petition. 8. As indicated above that no one appears on behalf of the petitioner on repeated calls to press this petition, however, perusal of the prayer made in the present petition, it is clear that there is a dispute with regard to the payment of dues towards the work done by the petitioner. 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. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and others v. Sukamani 5 WPC No. 3829 of 2025 Das (Smt.) and another, (1999) 7 SCC 298 was dealing with the question of whether the High Court had made an error in entertaining a writ petition filed seeking compensation for the death of a person due to electrocution, which had allegedly been caused due to the negligence of the authorities. The Supreme Court in the said case observed as under: "6. In our opinion, the High Court committed an
Decision
error in entertaining the writ petitions even though they were not fit cases for exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court went wrong in proceeding on the basis that as the deaths had taken place because of electrocution as a result of the deceased coming into contact with snapped live wires of the electric transmission lines of the appellants, that "admittedly/prima facie amounted to negligence on the part of the appellants". The High Court failed to appreciate that all these cases were actions in tort and negligence was required to be established firstly by the claimants. The mere fact that the wire of the electric transmission line belonging to Appellant 1 had snapped and the deceased had come in contact with it and had died was not by itself sufficient for awarding compensation. It also required to be examined whether the wire had snapped as a result of any negligence of the appellants and under which circumstances the deceased had come in contact with the wire. In view of the specific defences raised by the appellants in each of these cases they deserved an opportunity to prove that proper care 6 WPC No. 3829 of 2025 and precautions were taken in maintaining the transmission lines and yet the wires had snapped because of circumstances beyond their control or unauthorised intervention of third parties or that the deceased had not died in the manner stated by the petitioners. 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 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. The High Court should have directed the writ petitioners to approach the civil court as it was done in OJC No. 5229 of 1995." (emphasis supplied) 10. The aforesaid judgment has been relied/ reiterated by the Supreme Court in S.P.S. Rathore v. State of Haryana and others, (2005) 10 SCC 1 wherein it observed as follows: "16. In Chairman, Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) v. Sukamani Das [(1999) 7 SCC 298] the question which arose for consideration was, can the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution award compensation for death caused due to electrocution on account of negligence, when the liability was emphatically denied on the ground that the death had not occurred as a result of negligence, but because of an act of God or of acts of some other persons. The Court held that it is the settled legal position that where disputed questions 7 WPC No. 3829 of 2025 of facts are involved, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy. Therefore, questions as to whether death occurred due to negligence or due to act of God or of some third person could not be decided properly on the basis of affidavits only, but should be decided by the civil court after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties. In T.N. Electricity Board v. Sumathi [(2000) 4 SCC 543] it was held that when a disputed question of fact arises and there is clear denial of any tortious liability, remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution may not be proper. The Court carved out exception to this general rule by observing that, it should not be understood that in every case of tortious liability, recourse must be had to a suit. When there is negligence on the face of it and infringement of Article 21 is there, it cannot be said that there will be any bar to proceed under Article 226 of the Constitution." (emphasis supplied) 11. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 562 has held as under: "26. 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. It is not for the High Court to make a comparative assessment of conflicting technical reports and decide which one is acceptable." 8 WPC No. 3829 of 2025 12. Subsequently, in Union of India Vs. Puna Hinda, (2021) 10 SCC 690, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed: "24. Therefore, the dispute could not be raised by way of a writ petition on the disputed questions of fact. Though, the jurisdiction of the High Court is wide but in respect of pure contractual matters in the field of private law, having no statutory flavour, are better adjudicated upon by the forum agreed to by the parties. The dispute as to whether the amount is payable or not and/or how much amount is payable are disputed questions of facts. There is no admission on the part of the appellants to infer that the amount stands crystallised. Therefore, in the absence of any acceptance of joint survey report by the competent authority, no right would accrue to the writ petitioner only because measurements cannot be undertaken after passage of time. Maybe, the resurvey cannot take place but the measurement books of the work executed from time to time would form a reasonable basis for assessing the amount due and payable to the writ petitioner, but such process could be undertaken only by the agreed forum i.e. arbitration and not by the writ court as it does not have the expertise in respect of measurements or construction of roads." 13. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India (P) Ltd., (2023) 2 SCC 703, while dealing with the issue of exercise of writ jurisdiction by a Court in matters arising out of a contract, has stated: 9 WPC No. 3829 of 2025 "82.7. The existence of an alternate remedy, is, undoubtedly, a matter to be borne in mind in declining relief in a writ petition in a contractual matter. Again, the question as to whether the writ petitioner must be told off the gates, would depend upon the nature of the claim and relief sought by the petitioner, the questions, which would have to be decided, and, most importantly, whether there are disputed questions of fact, resolution of which is necessary, as an indispensable prelude to the grant of the relief sought. Undoubtedly, while there is no prohibition, in the writ court even deciding disputed questions of fact, particularly when the dispute surrounds demystifying of documents only, the Court may relegate the party to the remedy by way of a civil suit." (emphasis supplied) 14. A reading of the aforesaid judgments makes it clear that 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. It has been held that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be proper. 15. From perusal of the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner is seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities to consider his representation and to release the amount for the work executed by the petitioner, along with interest; is contingent upon the resolution of the disputed question of facts raised, and these questions cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the 10 WPC No. 3829 of 2025 Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid, it would not be appropriate for this Court to entertain the instant writ petition as there are disputed questions of fact involved. 16. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respondents, further considering the disputed questions of law involved in this writ petition, the relief sought by the petitioner and in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above- stated judgments (supra), we do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is 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). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S.Bhilwar/ Jyoti