M/s Madhu Constructions Through Its Proprietor Madhu Sudan Rana, Having Its OfÏce At Village v. 1. Executive Engineer C.G. State Agricultural Marketing
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34764-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3805 of 2025 M/s Madhu Constructions Through Its Proprietor Madhu Sudan Rana, Having Its OfÏce At Village Gorpa, Post Pendravan, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Executive Engineer C.G. State Agricultural Marketing (Mandi), Board, Head OfÏce/ Division OfÏce Sector-24, Atal Nagar, Nawa, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Managing Director, CG State Agricultural Marketing (Mandi) Board, Sector 24, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Executive Engineer, Durg C.G. Agricultural Marketing (Mandi), Board, Division OfÏce, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.07.22 18:45:04 +0530 For Petitioner : For Respondents 1 to 3 : For Respondent No. 4/State :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Vikhyat Arora and Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocates. Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Advocate. Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vikhyat Arora and Mr. Ankur Diwan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/ respondent No. 4. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 It is therefore prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly pleased to issue a writ / order / directions to direct the respondent authorities to refund the due SD & PG amount approx Rs. 23,08,637 with interest, in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief/ reliefs, which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case, projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner is a Company and is performing construction activities at various places & also awarded tender at various places on different dates by the Mandi Board for construction activities in the Durg District. One of Such tender is issued to the petitioner for 900 sqm road at Gram 3 Panchayat Pendravan for an estimated amount of Rs 7.98 Lakhs. Similar tender documents were executed between the parties & in lieu contract was executed & work order was issued & thereafter work completion certificate was also issued to the contractor, the SD & PG amount was also deducted but after work completion & according to the clauses of the tender documents, SD & PG amount deducted were not refunded to the contractor. It is further case of the petitioner that on 08.09.2024 & 31.07.2024, notices were send to the respondent authorities for refund of SD & PG amount for the work that has already been completed but no action has been taken by the respondent authorities. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that tender documents were executed between the parties & in lieu contract was executed & work order was issued and thereafter, work completion certificate was also issued to the contractor,the SD & PG amount was also deducted, but after work completion and according to the clauses of the tender documents, SD & PG amount deducted were not refunded to the contractor. He further submits that the details of the PG & SD to be refunded back to the contractor is mentioned in the various descriptions of work issued by the Mandi Board for the year 2012 to 2024-25 in the name of contractor Company & the same ought to be refunded to be contractor Company. He would submit that as per Clause 18 of the tender document, The Security deposit of the contractor tot he extent of 50% shall be refunded on his getting the completion certificate, provided that all the recoveries outstanding against him are released. Balance 50% of the amount shall be refunded after 04 months of completion of work or final bill paid whichever is earlier. 4 As per Clause 4 of the Special Condition of NIT of the tender documents, The contractor can get refund of such performance cash security amount deducted if he submits appropriate bank guarantee valid for the period as stated above or 24 month after actual completion. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that non release of the due SD & PG amount, after the work completion certificate issued by the respondents and despite notice to the respondent authorities will violate petitioner’s right under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He also contended that the petitioner has already completed the work as per the terms & conditions of the tender documents and contract between the parties and hence, non release of the due SD & PG amount will hamper petitioner right to do business also. Hence, this petition. 6. On the other hand, learned Advocate General opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the writ petition as framed and filed are 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 learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ petitions. 8. 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 Corpornation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) & Others v. Sukamani Das 5 (Smt.) & Another, reported in (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 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case observed as under: “6. In our opinion, the High Court committed an 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 sufÏcient 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 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 6 deceased had not died in the manner stated by the petitioners. These questions could not have been decided properly on the basis of afÏdavits 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.P.S. Rathore v. State of Haryana & Others, reported in (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 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 afÏdavits 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 7 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, reported in 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." 12. Subsequently, in Union of India vs. Puna Hinda, reported in (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 8 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., reported in (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: “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 9 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. In the present cases, the relief of compensations sought by the petitioner is contingent upon the resolution of the disputed question of facts raised, and these questions cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid, it would not be appropriate for this Court to entertain the present writ petitions as there are disputed questions of fact involved. 16. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, further considering the disputed questions of fact involved in this writ petition, the reliefs sought by the petitioner and in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments (supra), we do not find any good ground to entertain these writ petitions. 17. 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). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan