M/S Shishu vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shishu, through its proprietor Sarita Agrawal, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct respondents 02 and 03 to decide their representations and disburse an admissible amount of Rupees 16,62,874/- plus GST, with interest for any further delay. The petitioner also sought a writ to place the complete record for proper decision-making. The respondents are the State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, Department of School Education, the Collector (Tribal and Scheduled Caste Development Department), Bilaspur, and the Assistant Commissioner (Tribal and Scheduled Caste Development Department), Bilaspur. The petitioner's counsel and the State's counsel pointed out that this case is identical to WPC No. 2870/2025 (M/s Sai Info Services vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), which was dismissed by the same bench on 16.06.2025.

Held

The Court held that when disputed questions of fact are involved, 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 Court noted that the relief sought by the petitioner in the present case, similar to the identical matter WPC No. 2870/2025, is contingent upon the resolution of disputed questions of fact. These questions cannot be adjudicated under Article 226. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for the Court to entertain the writ petition. The Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that it was devoid of merit and involved disputed questions of fact. Liberty was reserved for the petitioner to pursue other alternate remedies available under the law. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the dismissal implies that the petitioner's claim for disbursement was not entertained due to the procedural bar.

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 in the case? (Question of law). The petitioner sought a direction for disbursement of an admitted amount plus GST and interest, implying a claim based on representations and calculations. The respondents, by referring to an identical previous case, implicitly argued that the relief sought by the petitioner is contingent upon the resolution of disputed questions of fact, making the writ remedy inappropriate. The Court's decision in the prior identical case, WPC No. 2870/2025, is central to the present petition's resolution. The previous judgment highlighted that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated under Article 226.