M/S Communication System vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Communication System, through its Proprietor Sapavath Nagulu, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct respondents to place records for proper decision or, alternatively, to direct respondents No. 2 and 3 (Assistant Commissioner and Collector, Tribal and Scheduled Caste Development Department) to clear an admissible amount of Rs. 3,50,430/- plus GST, along with interest for any delay. The petitioner also sought any other appropriate relief. The respondents included the State of Chhattisgarh, the Collector and Assistant Commissioner of the Tribal and Scheduled Caste Development Department, and the Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited. The case was heard by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur.

Held

The Court held that when disputed questions of fact are involved in a case, the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the remedy under Article 226 may not be proper. The relief sought by the petitioner was contingent upon the resolution of disputed questions of fact, which could not be adjudicated under Article 226. Therefore, it was not appropriate for the Court to entertain the writ petition. The Court relied on its previous order in WPC No. 2870/2025, which in turn referenced Supreme Court judgments. The Court found no good ground to entertain the writ petition as it was devoid of merit. The petitioner was granted liberty to take recourse to other alternate remedies available under the law. No costs were imposed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when disputed questions of fact are involved, as per the petitioner's prayer for directing payment of Rs. 3,50,430/- plus GST and interest. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to clear the admissible amount of Rs. 3,50,430/- plus GST and provide interest. The petitioner also sought a writ directing the respondents to place the complete record for a just decision. Respondents' Argument: The respondents, through their counsel, pointed out that an identical matter, WPC No. 2870/2025 (M/s Sai Info Services vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), was dismissed by the same Bench on 16.06.2025. They argued that the present petition involves disputed questions of fact, making the remedy under Article 226 inappropriate, and therefore, the present petition should also be dismissed in the same terms.