Writ Jurisdiction Ineligible for Adjudicating Disputed Questions of Fact in Contractual Claims involving Admitted Dues.

The Petitioner, a civil contractor, was awarded a work order dated 01.05.2023 for the construction of "Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Sarva Samaj Mangalik Bhawan" for approximately Rs. 308.94 lakhs

The Petitioner completed roughly 24% of the work, which was measured and verified in the official Measurement Register, entitling him to two bills totaling approximately Rs. 84.60 lakhs

On 28.08.2023, Respondent No. 1 directed the Petitioner to stop work. Following a previous High Court direction to consider the Petitioner’s representation, Respondent No. 1 rejected the claim for payment on 17.09.2024

The rejection was based on a "status quo" order passed by the Estate Officer regarding the construction site

The Petitioner challenged this rejection, asserting that the dues were admitted in official records and withholding them was arbitrary

Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to adjudicate claims for payment involving disputed questions of fact in a contractual matter

writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not the proper remedy when a case involves "hotly disputed questions of facts"

negligence or contractual liability should be established via evidence in civil courts rather than through affidavits in writ petitions [Chairman, GRIDCO v. Sukamani Das (1999)]

pure contractual matters without statutory flavor, particularly regarding the quantification of payable amounts, are better resolved through agreed forums like arbitration or civil suits [Union of India v. Puna Hinda (2021)]

the existence of an alternate remedy is a vital factor in declining relief in contractual writ petitions [M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India (P) Ltd. (2023)]

the Petitioner claimed his dues were "admitted" based on measurement books, the Respondents contested the liability based on a stay order issued by the Estate Officer regarding the site

the resolution of the Petitioner’s claim for compensation and outstanding dues is contingent upon resolving these conflicting factual assertions regarding the legality of the work and the impact of the status quo order

The court determined that it lacks the expertise to adjudicate technical measurements or assess the validity of such contractual defenses under Article 226, as such matters require the appreciation of evidence which can only be effectively performed by a civil court or an agreed-upon arbitral forum

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it would not entertain the matter due to the involvement of disputed questions of fact

liberty was reserved for the Petitioner to pursue alternate legal remedies, such as a civil suit or arbitration. No costs were awarded