Private payment-entitlement disputes must be resolved through civil proceedings or arbitration, not Article 226.

The petitioner was awarded a PWD contract for construction of the North Lakhimpur By-pass and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with respondent No. 6, Khushi Constructions, on 11 January 2021 to undertake the work.

The MoU provided that project payments would be made into a specified joint project account.

After completion of the work, the petitioner and respondent No. 6 disputed entitlement to the proceeds.

The Chief Engineer issued an order dated 31 December 2025 concerning payment to respondent No. 6, which the petitioner challenged in this writ petition; the Court noted that this was the second round of litigation.

Whether the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 6 over entitlement to the contract proceeds could be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226.

Whether the payable amount should be disbursed in accordance with the MoU into the parties’ joint project account.

A private dispute between contracting parties over their respective entitlement to payments is to be resolved before a competent civil court or, where an arbitration clause exists, through arbitration; the public-law remedy under Article 226 is not the forum for adjudicating that dispute.

The MoU, which stipulated that payments received in respect of the contract were to be deposited only into the specified joint project account.

The petitioner and respondent No. 6 disputed who was entitled to the completed-work proceeds, including whether payment to respondent No. 6 had been agreed.

The Court considered that question to be a dispute between the parties, not one for determination through the writ petition, and left its resolution to civil proceedings or arbitration if available.

However, because neither party disputed the MoU’s requirement that contract payments be deposited into the joint project account, the Court directed the Chief Engineer to pay the amount into that account.

The Chief Engineer, PWD (NH Works), was directed to disburse the entire amount payable into the joint project account within four months after service of a certified copy of the judgment.

The petitioner and respondent No. 6 were left to resolve their dispute amicably or, failing that, before a competent civil court or through arbitration if an arbitration clause exists.

The earlier interim order was vacated.