Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 7569
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
EAGLE ENTERPRISES IN CONSORTIUM WITH INNOVATIVE LIGHTING DESIGN LTD. – Appellant
Versus
CHHATTISGARH TOURISM BOARD MINISTRY OF TOURISM GOVT. OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPC No. 900 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Navin Kumar, Surbhi
For the Respondents: Suyash Dhar Badgaiyan
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally not maintainable for the enforcement of purely contractual obligations or recovery of money in commercial contracts involving disputed questions of fact, particularly when a contractual dispute resolution mechanism is available.
Headnote:The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the inaction of the respondents in taking over a project for the "Beautification and Illumination of Chitrakote Waterfall" and releasing pending dues. The project was awarded on a turnkey basis, but only partial payment was released despite the petitioner's claim of completion. The court found that the dispute primarily arises from a contractual arrangement involving a back-to-back payment clause. The main issue was whether the refusal to commission the project and release payments constitutes arbitrary state action violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The court reasoned that the dispute involves disputed questions of fact regarding certification and the effect of contractual stipulations, which cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction, especially when an efficacious alternative remedy exists. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the beautification project and the dispute over non-payment and non-commissioning. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. allegation of arbitrariness and violation of constitutional rights in public contracts. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. contractual nature of dispute and the application of back-to-back payment clauses. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. inapplicability of writ jurisdiction to disputes involving disputed contractual facts. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. distinguishing cases of admitted liability from those with contractual impediments. (Para 17) |
| 6. availability of alternative remedy and dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
1. Heard Mr. Navin Kumar and Ms. Surbhi, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. Suyash Dhar Badgaiyan, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents.
2. The Petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the inaction of the Respondents in not taking over the Project, namely “Beautification and Illumination of Chitrakote Waterfall, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh and its Operation and Maintenance for three years,” despite its completion on 15.09.2023 to their satisfaction. The Project was awarded by Respondent No.1, Chhattisgarh Tourism Board, to Respondent No.2, Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. (TCIL), on a deposit work, turnkey basis, pursuant to which Respondent No.2 issued a Letter of Intent dated 17.11.2022 to the Petitioner for ₹9,38,01,185/- (excluding GST) and executed an Agreement dated 23.11.2022; however, only ₹1.6 crores was released during execution. Although the Petitioner completed the work and sought inspection, handover, and release of pending dues, the Respondents neither took over the Project nor cleared the outstanding payments, and by letter dated 25.09.2025 Respondent No.2 stated that payment would be made only upon receipt of funds from Respondent No.1, resulting in denial of the Petitioner’s legitimate dues and risk of deterioration of the installed equipment. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following relief(s) :-
“10.1. It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, ordering and directing the Respondents to take over the Project works from the Petitioner for due commissioning of the same without any further delay;
10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions, ordering or directing the Respondents to forthwith release the balance payment of Rs. 9,21,07,556.26 due to the Petitioner against the certified Final Bill of the Petitioner in respect of the work executed by the Petitioner as mentioned in the present petition;
10.3. Any other relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition may also please be granted to the petitioners.”
3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Petitioner executed the Project titled “Beautification and Illumination of Chitrakote Waterfall, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh and its Operation and Maintenance for three years” at Chitrakote Waterfalls, a prominent tourist destination in the State. The work formed part of a larger tourism development initiative undertaken by Respondent No.1, Chhattisgarh Tourism Board, which had entrusted the execution of such projects to Respondent No.2, Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. (TCIL), on a deposit work, turnkey basis. Pursuant to an e-tender process, Respondent No.2 issued a Letter of Intent dated 17.11.2022 in favour of the Petitioner for a contract value of ₹9,38,01,185/- (excluding GST), followed by an Agreement dated 23.11.2022. The Petitioner completed the entire Project on 15.09.2023 to the satisfaction of Respondent No.2. However, during execution, only ₹1.6 crores was
