Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 17502
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
SHIVKUMAR KHUNTE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPC No. 4427 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Basant Dewangan
For the Respondents: Prasun Bhaduri
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally not maintainable for resolving contractual disputes involving disputed questions of fact, particularly where there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the State, unless gross arbitrariness or mala fides are established.
Headnote:The petitioner approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking release of pending dues for the construction of a road and bridge from Rodopali to Bhalumuda. The work was originally awarded to a third-party contractor, who subsequently engaged the petitioner through a private agreement. The respondent authorities refused payment on the grounds that there was no privity of contract between the State and the petitioner, and the subletting of the work was unauthorized under the contract terms. The primary issue was whether a writ petition is maintainable for the recovery of dues in a contractual matter where no direct contract exists between the petitioner and the State. The court reasoned that judicial review in commercial and contractual matters must be exercised with great restraint, especially when the dispute involves disputed questions of fact and a lack of privity of contract, unless clear arbitrariness, mala fides, or irrationality is demonstrated. Therefore, the present petition being devoid of merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks payment for road work executed via a private agreement with the primary contractor. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. dispute over the maintainability of a writ petition in the absence of privity of contract. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. judicial review in commercial contracts requires restraint unless gross arbitrariness is proven. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. petition dismissed due to lack of privity of contract and non-maintainability of writ for contractual dues. (Para 8 , 9) |
NAFR
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondent authorities for release of the alleged pending dues in respect of construction work of road from Rodopali to Bhalumuda including bridge, contending that despite completion of the work and submission of bills, the remaining payment has not been made; whereas, the stand of the respondent/State is that the contract was awarded to respondent No.5 and in absence of any privity of contract between the petitioner and the State, coupled with the allegation of unauthorized subletting of the work, no liability to make payment to the petitioner arises, and the dispute, if any, is purely contractual in nature.
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for the following reliefs:
“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to clear all the remaining dues of the petitioner pending before the authorities.
10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities consider the case of the petitioner by way of representation submitted by him.
10.4 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in favor of the petitioner may kindly be passed.”
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent/Public Works Department had floated a tender for construction of road from Rodopali to Bhalumuda including bridge and culverts over a stretch of 1.40 kilometers in District Raigarh. The said tender was awarded in favour of respondent No.5, pursuant to which a formal agreement was executed between the department and respondent No.5 for execution of the said work in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract.
******* It is the case of the petitioner that since respondent No.5 was unable to execute the work, he engaged the petitioner for carrying out the construction work and an agreement dated 16.12.2020 was executed between them. According to the petitioner, he undertook and completed substantial part of the construction work within the stipulated time and, during the course of execution, submitted bills before the department from time to time. It is further pleaded that despite completion of the work and submission of final bills, the entire payment has not been released and only part payment has been made, leaving the remaining dues unpaid.
******* The petitioner submits that he repeatedly approached the respondent authorities by submitting representations seeking release of the outstanding amount. Upon such representations, the department is stated to have initiated an enquiry and recorded statements of the petitioner as well as respondent No.5; however, no final decision for release of payment was taken. Aggrieved by the alleged inaction of the respondent authorities and claiming that the dues for the work executed by him have remained unpaid, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking a direction for release of the remaining payment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite execution of the construction work of road from Rodopali to Bhalumuda including bridge, the respondent authorities have failed to release the legitimate dues of the petitioner, thereby causing serious fina
