Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to adjudicate disputed questions of fact in contractual matters.

The Petitioner, a Class ‘C’ contractor, was awarded a construction contract by the Public Works Department (PWD) for building projects related to the Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal (Respondent No. 3).

After executing the agreement and commencing work, the Petitioner submitted four running bills that were duly inspected and approved by competent officers.

Despite approvals and the Petitioner’s continued performance, the Respondents failed to release the payments.

Respondent No. 2 stated that funds could not be released due to non-receipt of the same from Respondent No. 3.

The Petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the release of pending dues with 12% interest per annum.

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for the recovery of dues arising out of a works contract when the matter involves disputed questions of fact.

The Court applied the settled principle that the High Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when the case involves disputed questions of fact.

It relied on Chairman, GRIDCO v. Sukamani Das (1999), which held that where liability is denied or requires factual proof, a writ petition is not the proper remedy.

It further cited Union of India v. Puna Hinda (2021), which established that purely contractual matters lacking statutory flavor are better adjudicated by agreed forums, such as arbitration or civil courts, as writ courts lack expertise in assessing technical measurements or construction accounts.

Finally, it referenced M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India (P) Ltd. (2023), reinforcing that parties should be relegated to civil suits when the resolution of factual disputes is indispensable to the grant of relief.

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s grievances stem from alleged non-payment of dues under a works contract, which is a matter of private law rather than public law.

The Respondents challenged the maintainability of the petition, asserting that the disputed factual nature of the claims—specifically regarding the crystallization of the amount and the receipt of funds—precluded writ jurisdiction.

The Court reasoned that determining the exact amount payable and the validity of the claims involves an examination of contractual terms and financial accounts, which cannot be properly adjudicated based solely on affidavits in a writ proceeding.

Applying the cited precedents, the Court concluded that because the dispute is purely civil and contractual, the Petitioner must utilize efficacious alternative remedies, such as a civil suit, where evidence can be recorded and facts can be thoroughly examined.

Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

The Court reserved liberty for the Petitioner to pursue alternative legal remedies available under the law.

No costs were awarded.