Amit Kumar Agrawal vs The State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 266 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Amit Kumar Agrawal vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                    1




            Digitally signed
                                                                2026:CGHC:11391-DB
SAGRIKA by SAGRIKA
        AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date: 2026.03.11
            10:37:36 +0530
                                                                                    NAFR

                               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                         WPC No. 982 of 2026


           Amit Kumar Agrawal S/o Keshav Ram Agrawal Aged About 49 Years
           R/o Ward No. 16 Station Road Sakti District Sakti (C.G.)
                                                                          ... Petitioner(s)

                                                 versus

           1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban
           Administration And Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan,
           Mantralaya, Raipur. P.S. Civil Line , Post Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)


           2 - Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Palika Sakti P.S. Sakti District- Sakti
           (C.G.)


           3 - President Nagar Palika Parishad Sakti P.S. Sakti District- Sakti
           (C.G.)


           4 - Sub Divisional Officer Sakti District- Sakti (C.G.)

                                                                     ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General.

For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

10/03/2026

1. Heard Mr. Sudhir Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also

heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Dy. Advocate General, appearing for

the Respondent/State, Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing

for the Respondent No.2.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the

petitioners seek for the following relief(s):

"10.1 To kindly direct the respondents to returned

the money total of Rs. 17,00,000/- with interest

which was already invested by the petitioner for the

construction of the shopping complex.

10.2 To kindly direct the respondent to Vacate the

stay which was done by the CMO, Sakti by order

dated 25.06.2020 and continue the construction

work of the shopping complex which was given to

the petitioner.

10.3 To kindly be pleased to direct the respondent

authorities to consider the case of the petitioners

for return the money total of Rs. 17,00,000/- for all

the work done by the petitioner for construction of

commercial shopping complex.

10.4 To direct the respondent to decide the

representation of the petitioner within a prescribed

period.

10.5 Any other relief/order which may deem fit and

just in the facts and circumstances of the case

including award of the cost of the petition may be

given."

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a citizen of

India and a small entrepreneur residing at Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa

(C.G.), who runs a construction firm in the name and style of Surajbhan

Engineering, Sakti. The petitioner participated in an auction conducted

by Nagar Palika Parishad, Sakti for construction of a shopping complex

consisting of a chain of shops near Purhena Talab, Sakti, and being the

lowest bidder was awarded the contract with an estimated value of Rs.

45,01,494/- vide allotment dated 28.09.2019. Thereafter, the Chief

Municipal Officer issued a work order dated 25.11.2019 directing the

petitioner to commence the construction work, pursuant to which the

petitioner started the work and executed construction worth

approximately Rs. 25,00,000/-. However, the Chief Municipal Officer,

Nagar Palika Parishad, Sakti, vide order dated 25.06.2020 stayed the

construction work without assigning any sufficient reason.

Subsequently, the CMO sought demarcation of the land from the

Tahsildar, Sakti, who conducted demarcation on 18.06.2020 and

prepared a Panchnama stating that the construction of the shopping

complex would neither affect the nearby Talab nor cause any

inconvenience to the public. On the basis of the said report, the Sub-

Divisional Officer, Sakti, vide order dated 23.12.2020 directed the CMO

to remove the stay and allow the construction work to resume, and the

Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, also directed the CMO to vacate the

stay and permit continuation of the construction work. Despite the said

directions and repeated representations made by the petitioner from

time to time, including a representation dated 10.02.2026 seeking

release of Rs. 17,00,000/- towards the work already executed along

with interest, the respondent authorities have neither allowed the

petitioner to resume the construction work nor released the due

payment, thereby compelling the petitioner to approach this Hon'ble

Court by filing the present petition.

4. Mr. Sudhir Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner, submits that the action of the respondent authorities in

staying the construction work and withholding the payment due to the

petitioner is wholly unjust, arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to

settled principles of law. It is submitted that despite awarding the work

to the petitioner and permitting him to commence the construction, the

respondents abruptly stayed the work without assigning any valid

reason, which is also contrary to the doctrine of promissory estoppel

and the legitimate expectation of the petitioner. Learned counsel further

submits that the demarcation of the land was duly carried out by the

Tahsildar on 18.06.2020 in the presence of the concerned officials and

public representatives, and the Panchnama clearly recorded that the

construction of the shopping complex would not affect the nearby Talab

nor cause any inconvenience to the public at large. It is further

submitted that on the basis of the said report, the Sub-Divisional Officer,

Sakti directed the Chief Municipal Officer to remove the stay and permit

continuation of the construction work, and even the Commissioner

directed the respondent authorities to release the amount of

Rs.17,00,000/- towards the work already executed by the petitioner

along with interest. However, despite such directions and repeated

representations made by the petitioner, including the representation

seeking release of the due amount, the respondent authorities have

failed to take any decision and have kept the matter pending without

any justification. It is therefore submitted that the inaction of the

respondents is illegal and arbitrary, causing serious prejudice to the

petitioner.

5. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

Respondent No. 2, submits that the present petition is misconceived

and devoid of merits and the allegations made by the petitioner are

incorrect. It is submitted that Respondent No. 2 has acted strictly in

accordance with law and within the jurisdiction vested in the authority.

The temporary stay on the construction work was imposed only as a

precautionary measure to facilitate proper verification and demarcation

of the land situated near Purhena Talab so as to ensure that no public

land or water body is adversely affected and that public interest is duly

protected. It is further submitted that the respondent authority has acted

bona fide and without any arbitrariness or mala fide intention. Learned

counsel further submits that the claim of the petitioner with regard to

release of the alleged dues is subject to verification of records and

completion of necessary administrative formalities and the

representation submitted by the petitioner is presently under

consideration before the competent authority, which shall be decided in

accordance with law. Therefore, no interference is warranted by this

Hon'ble Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction and the present

petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits

that the writ petition as framed and filed is not maintainable as the

disputed question of facts cannot be adjudicated in writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. We have learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned

order and other documents appended with writ appeal.

8. It is settled law that the High Court should not exercise its

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when it raises

disputed question of facts.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Grid

Corpornation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and others v. Sukamani Das

(Smt.) and another, (1999) 7 SCC 298 was dealing with the question of

whether the High Court had made an error in entertaining a writ petition

filed seeking compensation for the death of a person due to

electrocution, which had allegedly been caused due to the negligence of

the authorities. The Supreme Court in the said case observed as under:

"6. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petitions even though they were not fit cases for exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court went wrong in proceeding on the basis that as the deaths had taken place because of electrocution as a result of the deceased coming into contact with snapped live wires of the electric transmission lines of the appellants, that "admittedly/prima facie amounted to negligence on the part of the appellants". The High Court failed to appreciate that all these cases were actions in tort and negligence was required to be established firstly by the claimants. The mere fact that the wire of the electric transmission line belonging to Appellant 1 had snapped and the deceased had come in contact with it and had died was not by itself sufficient for awarding compensation. It also required to be examined whether the wire had snapped as a result of any negligence of the appellants and under which circumstances the deceased had come in contact with the wire. In view of the specific defences raised by the appellants in each of these cases they deserved an opportunity to prove that proper care and precautions were taken in maintaining the transmission lines and yet the wires had snapped because of circumstances beyond their control or unauthorised intervention of third parties or that the deceased had not died in the manner stated by the

petitioners. These questions could not have been decided properly on the basis of affidavits only. It is the settled legal position that where disputed questions of facts are involved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy. The High Court has not and could not have held that the disputes in these cases were raised for the sake of raising them and that there was no substance therein. The High Court should have directed the writ petitioners to approach the civil court as it was done in OJC No. 5229 of 1995."

(emphasis supplied)

10. The aforesaid judgment has been relied/ reiterated by the

Supreme Court in S.P.S. Rathore v. State of Haryana and others,

(2005) 10 SCC 1 wherein it observed as follows:

"16. In Chairman, Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) v. Sukamani Das [(1999) 7 SCC 298] the question which arose for consideration was, can the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution award compensation for death caused due to electrocution on account of negligence, when the liability was emphatically denied on the ground that the death had not occurred as a result of negligence, but because of an act of God or of acts of some other persons. The Court held that it is the settled legal position that where disputed questions of facts are involved, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy. Therefore, questions as to whether death occurred due to negligence or due to act of God or of some third

person could not be decided properly on the basis of affidavits only, but should be decided by the civil court after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties. In T.N. Electricity Board v. Sumathi [(2000) 4 SCC 543] it was held that when a disputed question of fact arises and there is clear denial of any tortious liability, remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution may not be proper. The Court carved out exception to this general rule by observing that, it should not be understood that in every case of tortious liability, recourse must be had to a suit. When there is negligence on the face of it and infringement of Article 21 is there, it cannot be said that there will be any bar to proceed under Article 226 of the Constitution."

(emphasis supplied)

11. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shubhas Jain v.

Rajeshwari Shivam, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 562 has held as under:

"26. It is well settled that the High Court exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not adjudicate hotly disputed questions of facts. It is not for the High Court to make a comparative assessment of conflicting technical reports and decide which one is acceptable."

12. Subsequently, in Union of India Vs. Puna Hinda, (2021) 10 SCC

690, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed:

"24. Therefore, the dispute could not be raised by way of a writ petition on the disputed questions of fact. Though, the jurisdiction of the High Court is

wide but in respect of pure contractual matters in the field of private law, having no statutory flavour, are better adjudicated upon by the forum agreed to by the parties. The dispute as to whether the amount is payable or not and/or how much amount is payable are disputed questions of facts. There is no admission on the part of the appellants to infer that the amount stands crystallised. Therefore, in the absence of any acceptance of joint survey report by the competent authority, no right would accrue to the writ petitioner only because measurements cannot be undertaken after passage of time. Maybe, the resurvey cannot take place but the measurement books of the work executed from time to time would form a reasonable basis for assessing the amount due and payable to the writ petitioner, but such process could be undertaken only by the agreed forum i.e. arbitration and not by the writ court as it does not have the expertise in respect of measurements or construction of roads."

13. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Power

Management Co. Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India (P) Ltd.,

(2023) 2 SCC 703, while dealing with the issue of exercise of writ

jurisdiction by a Court in matters arising out of a contract, has stated:

"82.7. The existence of an alternate remedy, is, undoubtedly, a matter to be borne in mind in declining relief in a writ petition in a contractual matter. Again, the question as to whether the writ petitioner must be told off the gates, would depend upon the nature of the claim and relief sought by the petitioner, the questions, which would have to

be decided, and, most importantly, whether there are disputed questions of fact, resolution of which is necessary, as an indispensable prelude to the grant of the relief sought. Undoubtedly, while there is no prohibition, in the writ court even deciding disputed questions of fact, particularly when the dispute surrounds demystifying of documents only, the Court may relegate the party to the remedy by way of a civil suit."

(emphasis supplied)

14. A reading of the aforesaid judgments makes it clear that it is well

settled proposition of law that when there are disputed question of facts

involved in a case, the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been held that the

remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be proper.

15. From perusal of the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner has

prayed for issuance of direction to the respondent to vacate the stay

which was done by the CMO, Sakti by order dated 25.06.2020 and

continue the construction work of the shopping complex which was

given to the petitioner and he further prayed for return the money total

of Rs. 17,00,000/- with interest which was already invested by the

petitioner for the construction of the shopping complex.

16. In the instant case, the relief sought by the petitioner is contingent

upon the resolution of the disputed question of facts raised, and these

questions cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. In view of the aforesaid, it would not be appropriate for this Court

to entertain the instant writ petition as there are disputed questions of

fact involved.

17. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the

parties, further considering the disputed questions of law involved in this

writ petition, the relief sought by the petitioner and in view of law laid

down by the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments (supra), we

do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition.

18. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be

and is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the

petitioner to take recourse to other alternate remedies available to him

under the law. No cost(s).

                        Sd/-                                Sd/-
            (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)                   (Ramesh Sinha)
                      Judge                              Chief Justice


sagrika