Disputed claims for contractual dues cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petitioner, proprietor of M/S Ashok Tent House, alleged that he was contracted by the Block Development Officer (BDO), Sakra, to supply tent materials and services for official functions and the 2020 Bihar Legislative Assembly Elections

The petitioner submitted bills totaling ₹31,03,893/-, out of which ₹8,00,000/- was paid as an advance, leaving an outstanding balance of ₹23,03,893/-

Despite representations to the District Public Grievance Redressal Officer and the Divisional Commissioner, no payment was released

The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that a Three-Member Enquiry Committee found the petitioner's claim to be false and meritless

the respondents claimed the petitioner had submitted a written application to the BDO expressing his intention to withdraw the Writ petition

1. Whether a Writ of Mandamus can be issued for the recovery of money in a contractual matter where the debt is specifically disputed by the State

2. Whether the High Court, under Article 226, can adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact requiring evidence

The Court applied the principles governing the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It followed the established doctrine that while the High Court has the power to enforce contractual obligations against the State, it should refrain from doing so when the case involves "serious and disputed questions of fact"

Under Article 14, State action must be non-arbitrary, but a Writ is not a substitute for a civil suit when the entitlement to a claim requires the appreciation of evidence and examination of factual issues

The Court observed that the principal controversy centered on the genuineness and admissibility of the petitioner’s monetary claim

While the petitioner maintained that the work was executed satisfactorily, the respondents categorically denied the liability, citing the findings of a Three-Member Enquiry Committee that labeled the claim as not genuine

The Court reasoned that the rival pleadings created a situation where the execution of work, the extent of services, and the correctness of the bills were all under dispute

The Court held that such factual determinations cannot be made in a summary proceeding under Writ jurisdiction as they require the formal recording of evidence and detailed examination

Regarding the controversy over the withdrawal of the petition, the Court held it was immaterial to the merits, as the disputed nature of the debt itself precluded the issuance of a Writ

The Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it