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

The Petitioner, a construction firm proprietor, was awarded a contract by Nagar Palika Parishad, Sakti, for a shopping complex near Purhena Talab via a work order dated 25.11.2019

After executing work worth approximately ₹25,00,000, the Chief Municipal Officer (CMO) stayed the construction on 25.06.2020 without specific reasons

Despite a later demarcation report by the Tahsildar stating the project would not harm the water body, and subsequent directions from the Sub-Divisional Officer and Commissioner to resume work and release payments, the respondent authorities failed to act

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking the release of ₹17,00,000 with interest and the vacation of the stay order

1. Whether the High Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to adjudicate disputes involving contested questions of fact and purely contractual monetary claims

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to release payments and resume construction work despite the matter being in the realm of private law

The court applied the settled principle that High Courts should not exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when a case involves "hotly disputed questions of facts"

It relied on *Chairman, GRIDCO v. Sukamani Das (1999)*, establishing that writ petitions are not proper remedies for tortious or factual disputes better suited for civil courts

It further cited *Union of India v. Puna Hinda (2021)*, which held that disputes regarding whether an amount is payable under a contract are factual questions to be settled by the agreed forum (arbitration or civil suit) rather than the writ court

Finally, it referenced *M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India (P) Ltd. (2023)*, noting that the existence of alternate remedies is a key factor in declining relief in contractual matters

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s claims—specifically the demand for ₹17,00,000 and the resumption of work—cannot be resolved without first determining factual disputes regarding the extent of work completed and the administrative justifications for the stay

The Bench reasoned that because the Respondent/State contested the allegations and raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, the matter fell outside the scope of Article 226

Following Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that it lacks the expertise to adjudicate measurements or "crystallize" debts in purely contractual matters having no statutory flavor

Thus, the resolution of these facts is an "indispensable prelude" that necessitates a civil trial or alternative dispute resolution rather than summary writ proceedings

The Court answered the issues in the negative, stating it would be inappropriate to entertain the petition under Article 226

However, the Court reserved liberty for the Petitioner to pursue alternative legal remedies (such as a civil suit) to recover the dues and contest the stay order