Disputed public works contract claims must be pursued before the statutory Arbitration Tribunal, not under Article 226.

The petitioner, Ward Development Management Committee of Gram Panchayat Ganghara, Ward No. 12, sought payment of the alleged balance amount of ₹1,82,020 out of the estimated and approved amount of approximately ₹4,54,580 for soil filling and brick soling work on the road from Nandu Sharma’s field to Middle School, Ganghara.

The petitioner also challenged Memo No. 622 dated 26 April 2019 issued by the Block Development Officer, Danapur, directing removal of the constructed road. During hearing, the respondents contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy before the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal and that the dispute involved disputed questions of fact.

1. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable for seeking payment and challenging the direction to remove the work when the dispute involved disputed questions of fact.

2. Whether the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory remedy before the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal under the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008.

The Court applied the principle that a writ petition under Article 226 is ordinarily inappropriate for adjudicating disputed questions of fact, particularly claims for payment arising out of the execution of works.

It relied on the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008, under which the Tribunal is constituted to resolve disputes arising from the execution or non-execution of the whole or part of a contract relating to works or services, including connected matters.

The reliefs sought required determination of the petitioner’s entitlement to payment, the validity of the estimated and approved amount, the execution of the work, and the legality of the direction for removal. These matters involved disputed factual questions and arose in the context of a works-related contractual dispute.

Applying the statutory scheme of the 2008 Act, the Court held that the specialised Arbitration Tribunal was the appropriate forum to examine the dispute. Consequently, the Court declined to adjudicate the merits under Article 226 and directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy.

The Tribunal was directed to pass an appropriate order after hearing the petitioner within three months from the date of filing of the application. The writ petition and any pending interlocutory applications were accordingly disposed of.