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 to place the complete record and to decide representations and disburse an admissible amount of ₹22,51,329/- plus GST, with interest for any delay. The petitioner sought these reliefs from the State of Chhattisgarh, the Collector Bilaspur, and the Assistant Commissioner (Tribal and Scheduled Caste Development Department) Bilaspur. The respondents, represented by the Additional Advocate General, pointed out that a similar writ petition, WPC No. 2870/2025 (M/s Sai Info Services vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), was dismissed by the same bench on June 16, 2025. Both parties agreed that the facts and issues in the present case are identical to the previously dismissed petition.

Held

The Court held that the facts and issues involved in the present writ petition are identical to those in WPC No. 2870/2025. Following the order passed in that identical matter on June 16, 2025, the Court found no good ground to entertain the present writ petition. The reasoning in the prior judgment, which was adopted here, stated that when disputed questions of fact are involved, the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The relief sought by the petitioner was contingent upon the resolution of these disputed facts, which cannot be adjudicated under Article 226. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. Liberty was reserved for the petitioner to pursue 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 precedent set in M/s Sai Info Services vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (WPC No. 2870/2025)? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to decide their representations and disburse the admissible amount of ₹22,51,329/- plus GST, along with interest for any delay. The petitioner implicitly argued that the High Court's intervention was necessary to secure these reliefs. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondents, through the Additional Advocate General, contended that an identical writ petition (WPC No. 2870/2025) involving disputed questions of fact was dismissed by this bench on June 16, 2025. They argued that the present petition should also be dismissed on the same grounds, citing the principle that writ jurisdiction is not appropriate for resolving disputed facts.