Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked for Recovery of Contractual Dues Involving Disputed Questions of Fact

The Petitioner, a partnership firm, was awarded nine tenders for executing water supply schemes under the "Jal Jeevan Mission" in District Mahasamund

The Petitioner claimed to have completed the work within the stipulated time, receiving completion and testing certificates from competent authorities

The Petitioner alleged that while full payment was released for three tenders, the Respondent authorities withheld approximately Rs. 1.5 Crores across the remaining tenders despite repeated representations

The Respondents opposed the petition, contending that the works were undertaken after the expiry of the "100 Days Campaign" timeline, creating fund release issues

They further argued that the dispute involves complex contractual obligations and disputed questions of fact, making it unsuitable for writ jurisdiction

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for the recovery of money and enforcement of contractual obligations involving disputed questions of fact.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction when an efficacious alternative remedy, such as a civil suit, is available.

The Court primarily applied the principle that writ jurisdiction is not intended to supplant ordinary civil remedies for contractual disputes involving complex factual adjudications

It relied on State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd., which held that breach of contract claims must be investigated in a civil suit

The Court further applied the principles from Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India, summarizing that money claims arising out of contractual obligations are normally not entertained under Article 226 except in exceptional circumstances

It also cited Union of India v. Puna Hinda and M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India (P) Ltd., affirming that disputes over whether or how much amount is payable are questions of fact better suited for trial or arbitration

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s grievance is essentially a "money claim" for recovery of outstanding dues under a contract

The Court reasoned that resolving these conflicting claims would require a detailed examination of contractual liabilities, availability of funds, and adherence to scheme guidelines

Following the established precedents, the Court found that such "serious factual controversies" necessitate oral and documentary evidence, which cannot be effectively adjudicated in a summary writ proceeding

Since the matter falls within the realm of private law without a distinct "public law" character, the Court determined there was no reason to bypass the alternative remedy of a civil suit

The Court answered both issues in the negative, ruling that the petition was not maintainable for the recovery of contractual dues. However, the Court granted liberty to the Petitioner to pursue alternative legal remedies, such as a civil suit, before a competent forum