### Writ Petition is Not Maintainable for Recovery of Dues Involving Disputed Questions of Fact Regarding Contractual Performance

The Petitioner, a private engineering firm, was awarded two contracts for road widening and improvement under the SOPD 2019-20.

The Petitioner claimed to have successfully completed the works and submitted final bills totaling ₹8,07,80,954/-, against which ₹3,00,00,000/- was released in November 2020.

The Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for the release of the outstanding balance of ₹5,07,80,954/-.

The Respondent No. 6 (Executive Engineer, PWD) filed an affidavit-in-opposition contending that the works were incomplete (specifically citing 40 meters of road remaining), the bills were not signed by the Petitioner, and the entitlement to the claimed amount was disputed.

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable when there are sharply disputed questions of fact regarding the completion of contractual work and the validity of bills.

The Court applied the established principle of administrative law that High Courts, exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, generally refrain from adjudicating "disputed questions of facts".

Where a claim for money arises out of a contract and the underlying factual basis for the claim (such as performance or completion) is categorically denied by the State, such disputes are beyond the scope of summary writ proceedings and must be resolved through a forum where evidence can be led.

The Court observed a direct conflict between the Petitioner’s assertions and the State's evidence where the Respondents filed an affidavit categorically denying the successful completion of the works and the formal validity of the submitted bills.

The Court reasoned that evaluating the veracity of these conflicting claims would require an examination of evidence, which is not feasible in a writ proceeding.

The Court determined that the matter did not warrant judicial intervention under Article 226 as it did not involve a simple case of admitted liability, but rather a complex factual dispute.

The Court granted the Petitioner liberty to approach a competent Civil Court for recovery of dues, ordering that the period from the filing of the writ (10.01.2025) to the date of judgment (06.05.2026) be excluded when computing the limitation period.