Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 6919
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ
G M CONSTRUCTION – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPC/3014/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava
For the Respondents: Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Mr. Shashank Thakur
The High Court cannot adjudicate on disputed questions of fact in writ petitions under Article 226; such matters must be resolved in civil courts.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 and 21 - Writ jurisdiction - High Court should not entertain petitions raising disputed questions of fact - The petitioner, a government contractor, sought payment for completed work but faced demands for royalty clearance certificate. The court reiterated that when disputes of fact arise, such matters should be adjudicated by civil courts rather than through writ petitions. (Paras 9, 10, 15, 18)
(B) Legal principles - The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited; it should not resolve disputed facts, especially in contractual matters. (Paras 11, 12, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Class-B contractor, filed for payment for civil works but was denied due to lack of a royalty clearance certificate, despite similar cases being ruled favorably by the court.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the writ petitions due to the presence of disputed facts.
Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court could adjudicate on the payment dispute given the factual disputes involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that disputed questions of fact are not suitable for resolution under Article 226, emphasizing that such matters should be addressed by a civil court.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks intervention for payment release. (Para 1 , 2 , 7) |
| 2. petitioner claims payment for work done, citing contract terms. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court discusses jurisdiction and disputed facts. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. court rules on the inappropriateness of writ petitions for factual disputes. (Para 16) |
| 5. court dismisses writ petitions but allows for alternate remedies. (Para 17) |
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
19.06.2025
1. Heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents authorities particularly the respondent No. 4 to release the payment towards final bills of the petitioner against the work which have already been completed by them.
10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief’s in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the citizen of India, and therefore, he is entitled to enjoy all the Constitutional Rights and Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution of India. He further submits that the petitioner is government contractor, registered as Class-B Contractor under the office of Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Chhattisgarh. The petitioner has been allotted various work orders by the Municipal Council, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) for the civil work as building, drain and CC road.
4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Clause 35 of the Agreement ‘Form-A' of Nagar Palik Nigam/Nagar Palika Parishad/Nagar Panchayat, Public Works Department provides for the Clause of Royalty on Minor Minerals. The said Clause is quoted below for kind perusal and ready reference:-
“The contractor shall pay all quarries, royalty charges etc. If the contractor fails to produce the royalty clearance certificate from concerned department then the Commissioner/CMO shall deduct the royalty charges from his bills and keep in deposit head, which shall be refunded to the contractor on production of royalty clearance certificate from the concerned department. If he fails to produce the royalty clearance certificate within 30 days of submission of final bill, then royalty charges which was keep under deposit head by the Commissioner/CMO shall be deposited to the concerned department.
Any charges in the royalty rates of Minor Minerals notified by the State Government after the date of submission of final offer by the bidder/contractor then this increase/decrease in the rates shall be reimbursed/deducted on actual basis.”
Which clearly shows that the contractor shall pay all quarries, royalty charges etc. If the contractor fails to produce the royalty clearance certificate from the concerned department then the Municipal Commissioner shall deduct the royalty charges from his bills and keep in deposit head and if he fails to produce the royalty clearance certificate within 30 date of submission of final bill, then royalty charges which was keep under deposit head by the Municipal Corporation shall be deposited to the concerned department and the final bill payment shall be released.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the agreement speaks very clearly that the royalty charges on Mines and Minerals has to be paid and the procedure has been prescribed in the agreement itself. He furthe
