Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur

Order Date: 07.07.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – M/s D.A. Enterprises, represented by proprietor Shri Dinesh Kumar Mishra; Respondents – State of Chhattisgarh (Secretary, Department of Public Works), Engineer‑In‑Chief, PWD, Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer, and Chhattisgarh Road And Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd (CRIDCO Ltd).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition (W.P.C. No. 3494 of 2026) filed under Article 226 seeking (i) the entire contract record (No. 67/DL/2021‑22), (ii) refund of security deposit, additional security deposit, deductions from payments, and other dues with 12% interest, (iii) quashing of departmental proceedings against officials, and (iv) any other relief.
  • Contract Background: The petitioner was awarded the upgradation and renewal of the Uslapur–Daija Road via Letter of Acceptance dated 16‑08‑2021 and Work Order dated 07‑10‑2021. Execution was hampered by underground pipelines of the Public Health Engineering Department, leading to time extensions and eventual request for contract closure. The contract was terminated on 01‑06‑2023, a termination later challenged in W.P.(C) No.5194 of 2023. The writ petition was earlier disposed on 18‑07‑2025, granting liberty to invoke Clause 28 of the agreement.
  • Subsequent Developments: The petitioner invoked Clause 28 before the Superintending Engineer; the decision was appealed to the Chief Engineer, who on 11‑11‑2025 set aside the termination order. Despite this, the petitioner’s repeated requests for release of security deposit, additional security deposit, earnest money deposit, deductions from running bills, and other contractual dues remained unanswered, prompting the present writ petition.
  • Petitioner’s Argument: With the termination order set aside, the respondents are legally bound to release all amounts payable; continued retention is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
  • Respondent’s Argument: The writ petition is not maintainable as the dispute concerns contractual monetary claims that require factual determination (measurements, bills, recoveries) and are better suited to a civil suit or the contractual dispute resolution mechanism; an alternative remedy exists.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The Court reiterated settled law that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is inappropriate where disputed questions of fact arise. It cited Supreme Court judgments (Chairman, GRIDCO v. Sukamani Das; S.P.S. Rathore v. State of Haryana; Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam; Union of India v. Puna Hinda; M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India) emphasizing that monetary claims involving factual disputes must be adjudicated by the appropriate civil forum or agreed arbitration mechanism. The Court found no exceptional circumstance warranting interference.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue civil or other contractual remedies for adjudication of monetary claims.
  • No order as to costs was made, and the Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s entitlement.

Topics: Contractual Dispute, Writ Petition