Court’s Decision
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking compensation for construction work allegedly executed and raw material lost due to theft and negligence by the Public Works Department. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that the petition raised “disputed questions of fact” which are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Court, while dismissing the petition, granted liberty to the petitioner to seek alternate remedies under the law.
“When there are disputed questions of facts involved in a case, the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
Facts
The petitioner, a contractor, was awarded a tender for construction of “Twin F Type Quarters” at Sitapur, Surguja, valued at ₹22.62 lakhs. Following the acceptance of his bid on 24.06.2015 and issuance of a work order on 04.07.2015, the petitioner claimed that there was delay in providing the construction layout. The layout was eventually provided on 09.09.2015, after which he began work and stationed construction materials at the site.
On 10.10.2015, due to third-party disturbances and a stay order from the Tehsildar dated 12.10.2015, the petitioner halted work and communicated this to the department. Multiple representations were made seeking resolution and compensation for the work done and damage/theft of material, but no action was taken.
In January 2024, the petitioner learned that the original tender had been cancelled and reissued to another contractor without his knowledge. Alleging negligence, breach, and fraud by the authorities, he filed the writ petition seeking:
- Compensation for executed work with 18% interest,
- ₹8,80,000 for raw material damage and theft with interest,
- Damages for delay and cancellation without notice.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and damages under a writ petition for contractual disputes involving negligence and third-party intervention.
- Whether such reliefs involving highly disputed facts can be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that:
- The construction site was handed over late and was encumbered with third-party disputes.
- Despite executing partial work and repeated communication, the department failed to act, leading to theft and damage of material.
- No termination notice was issued before cancellation of the tender, and awarding it to a new contractor without compensating him was arbitrary and fraudulent.
- He relied on the Patna High Court judgment in Raghoji House of Distribution v. State of Bihar, 2022 SCC OnLine Pat 2368 to support his claim for compensation under similar circumstances.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the writ petition on maintainability, arguing that:
- The petition raised complex and disputed questions of fact regarding work execution, theft, layout delays, and contractual performance.
- These issues could not be adjudicated in a writ proceeding and required detailed evidence, which is the domain of civil courts.
- Hence, the petition under Article 226 was not maintainable.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated the settled principle that disputed factual questions arising from contractual disputes and negligence claims are unsuitable for adjudication in writ proceedings. It cited several judgments where the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that compensation and tortious claims involving negligence must be proven through evidence in appropriate civil forums.
Precedent Analysis
- Chairman, GRIDCO v. Sukamani Das, (1999) 7 SCC 298
The Supreme Court held that writ courts should not adjudicate compensation claims involving negligence unless negligence is undisputed or apparent on the face of the record. - S.P.S. Rathore v. State of Haryana, (2005) 10 SCC 1
Reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to decide tort claims where the respondent denies negligence. - Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 562
Emphasised that High Courts should avoid determining highly disputed facts under Article 226. - Union of India v. Puna Hinda, (2021) 10 SCC 690
Held that disputes over measurement, execution, and entitlement under a contract are better suited for arbitration or civil courts. - M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India (P) Ltd., (2023) 2 SCC 703
Clarified that even though writ courts may examine documents, they should avoid cases requiring evidence and fact-finding, especially in contract matters.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that:
- The entire petition hinged upon disputed claims, such as how much work was executed, whether the site was encumbered, and who was responsible for delays and theft.
- There was no clear admission by the State of liability, nor any crystallised amount that could be considered due.
- The compensation sought, including interest and damages, required a detailed factual analysis which cannot be done under writ jurisdiction.
The Court held that the proper remedy lay before the civil courts or other alternate forums agreed under the contract.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the writ petition for being devoid of merit and involving disputed facts unsuitable for adjudication under Article 226. It, however, granted liberty to the petitioner to explore alternate legal remedies.
Implications
The judgment reinforces the principle that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to bypass civil remedies in disputes involving complex facts, contracts, or alleged negligence. Contractors seeking compensation must approach the proper forum, especially when the facts are contested and require evidence.
Also Read: Patna High Court Declines to Quash PDS Dealer Appointment; Directs Aggrieved Candidate to File Time