Chattisgarh High Court
M/S R.R. Inustries Betul, M.P. ( Joint ... vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited ( ... on 13 May, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
2026:CGHC:22528-DB
Digitally signed by
V PADMAVATHI
Date: 2026.05.19
NAFR
13:42:32 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2428 of 2026
M/s R.R. Industries Betul, M.P. ( Joint Venture) Through Its Authorized Signatory
Reresentative,firoz Patel Son Of Haji Ahmed Patel Aged About 55 R/o -Near Gujrati
Jain Mandir, Ganj Betul, District -Betul,Madhya Pradesh. ... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited ( Secl) Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing
Director, Secl Headquarters, Seepat Road Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Pincode -495555
2 - General Manager (Csr),secl Secl Headquarters, Seepat Road, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh Pincode-495555
3 - General Manager (Finance) Secl Secl Headquarters Seepat Road
Bilaspur,chhattisgarh Pincode 495555
4 - General Manager (Operation/medical )secl Secl Headquarters, Seepat Road,
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Pincode-495555
5 - General Sub-Area Manager (Headquarters),secl Secl Headquarters, Seepat Road,
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Pincode-495555
6 - State Bank Of India Through Its General Manager, Betul Branch,madhya Pradesh
7 - Icici Bank Limited Through Its General Manager ,betul Branch, Madhya Pradesh
...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Ms Pragati Pandey, Advocate For Respective Respondents : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Singh, Advocate, and Shri Sidharth Pandey, Advocates
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13.05.2026 Wpc 2428 of 2026 2 Heard Ms Pragati Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Singh, and Shri Sidharth Pandey, learned counsel for the respective respondents.
1. Petitioner has filed the present petition with the following prayer:
"a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned cancellation order dated 28.02.2026 (Annexure P/20) passed by the Respondent authorities;
b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to release all outstanding payments due and payable to the Petitioner under the subject project/contract;
c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to refund/release the forfeited Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) amounting to Rs.17,80,179/-, along with applicable interest;
Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."
2. Present petition is being filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned termination/cancellation order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the respondent authorities. Matter pertains to the operation of 13 Mobile Medical Units (MMUs) initiated under its CSR Department of the respondents, for which they floated an NIT prescribing specific conditions, including procurement and modification of ambulances. Petitioner, acting in good faith, procured 14 vehicles, duly modified them Wpc 2428 of 2026 3 with the requisite medical equipment and stationed them at the respective sites by the first week of November, 2024. However, upon issuance of the Work Order, respondent authorities introduced new and inconsistent conditions, including changes in the inspection procedure and payment mechanism, contrary to the original NIT, despite compliance by the petitioner and despite the Chief Medical Officer certifying the said vehicles as fit for use. As a result, project commencement was initiated and till date, no payment has been released, not even for a single month of work. After several reminders by thepetitioner, respondent authorities issued the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on 30.05.2025, after delay of nearly seven months from the commencement of the project. Despite repeated written representations made to the respondents, no remedial action has been taken.
Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities, petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court by filing a writ petition bearing No.WPC-4911 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 15.09.2025 with liberty to the petitioner to file afresh. Pursuant to the said order, respondents issued a letter/notice on 04.08.2025 and on 03.09.2025, to which petitioner duly submitted a detailed reply. However, without considering the said reply in its proper perspective, respondent authorities proceeded to issue Show Cause- Notice, which was also replied to, by the petitioner within the stipulated time. Thereafter, in complete disregard of the petitioner's responses and without affording proper consideration, respondent authorities arbitrarily and unlawfully Wpc 2428 of 2026 4 passed the impugned order of cancellation on 28.02.2026, forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) amounting to Rs.17,80,179/-. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the arbitrary and illegal termination/cancellation order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the respondent-SECL in relation to the ambulance service contract awarded to the Petitioner pursuant to the NIT and Work Order. Learned counsel submits that despite substantial compliance of contractual obligations, including procurement and modification of ambulances, deployment of medical staff, and readiness certified by competent authorities, the Respondents arbitrarily altered contractual terms, imposed shifting compliances, obstructed execution of the project, and withheld legitimate payments. It is further contended that the impugned action has been taken in violation of principles of natural justice without proper consideration of the Petitioner's replies and is vitiated by arbitrariness, mala fides, and non-application of mind. Since Respondent-SECL is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, its actions are amenable to judicial review and liable to be interfered with in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Show Cause Notice dated 10.11.2025 was issued in a mechanical and pre-determined manner without proper application of mind, thereby vitiating the entire subsequent proceedings including the impugned order. The respondents failed to release any payment to the Wpc 2428 of 2026 5 Petitioner despite readiness and compliance, which itself constitutes arbitrary and unreasonable conduct, and the subsequent termination is an attempt to cover up such failure.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the writ petition, as framed and filed, is not maintainable since it involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further submitted that the agreement executed between the parties contains an arbitration clause providing an efficacious alternative remedy to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner may be relegated to avail the remedy available under the agreement and law. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available under the arbitration clause/agreement, in accordance with law.
5. We have learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the petition.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Motors Limited v The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (Best) and Others passed in Civil Appeal No. 3897 of 2023 vide judgment dated 19.05.2023 held as follows :
"48. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights Wpc 2428 of 2026 6 is duty-bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. However, this Court has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. This Court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out. One must remember that today many public sector undertakings compete with the private industry. The contracts entered into between private parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior courts but this discretionary power must be exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution. The courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving technical issues the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in Judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. The courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give "fair play in the joints" to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer. (See: Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489).
52. Ordinarily, a writ court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer unless something very gross or palpable is pointed out. The court ordinarily should not interfere in matters relating to tender or contract. To set at naught the entire tender process at the stage when the contract is well underway, would not be in public interest. Initiating a fresh tender process at this stage may consume lot of time and also loss to the public exchequer to the tune of crores of rupees. The financial burden/implications on the public exchequer that the State may have to meet with if the Court directs issue of a fresh tender notice, should be one of the guiding factors that the Court should keep in mind. This is evident from a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 679.
Wpc 2428 of 2026 7
53. The law relating to award of contract by the State and public sector corporations was reviewed in Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617 and it was held that the award of a contract, whether by a private party or by a State, is essentially a commercial transaction. It can choose its own method to arrive at a decision and it is free to grant any relaxation for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It was further held that the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned.
Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process, the court must exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should interfere.
54. As observed by this Court in Jagdish Mandal v.
State of Orissa and Others, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517, that while invoking power of judicial review in matters as to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind that evaluations of tenders and awarding of contracts are essentially commercial functions and principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance in such matters. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not interfere by exercising powers of judicial review even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. Power of judicial review will not be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes."
7. It is trite law that writ jurisdiction is not intended to supplant ordinary civil remedies, particularly in matters involving contractual disputes requiring adjudication of complex and disputed questions of fact. In "State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd.", 2002 (1) SCC 216, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the claim arises out of breach of contract and involves disputed facts, the appropriate remedy lies in a civil suit and not in a writ petition. In paragraph 7, it has been Wpc 2428 of 2026 8 observed that:-
"7. In the present case many matters could be decided after referring to the contentions raised in the affidavits and counter-affidavits, but that would hardly be a ground for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in case of alleged breach of contract. Whether the alleged non-supply of road permits by the appellants would justify breach of contract by the respondent would depend upon facts and evidence and is not required to be decided or dealt with in a writ petition. Such seriously disputed questions or rival claims of the parties with regard to breach of contract are to be investigated and determined on the basis of evidence which may be led by the parties in a properly instituted civil suit rather than by a court exercising prerogative of issuing writs."
8. Though in "ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.", 2004 (3) SCC 553, the Hon'ble Apex Court recognized that a writ petition may be maintainable in contractual matters in limited circumstances, it was clearly observed that such jurisdiction is to be exercised where the facts are undisputed or where the State action is patently arbitrary, unreasonable, or in violation of Article 14. The present case does not fall within such an exception, as the very substratum of the petitioner's claim is contested.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India", 2015 (7) SCC 728, where adjudication involves serious factual controversies necessitating evidence, the writ court should decline to exercise jurisdiction and relegate the parties to appropriate forums. In paragraphs 69 and 70, the legal position has been summarised that:-
Wpc 2428 of 2026 9 "69. The position thus summarised in the aforesaid principles has to be understood in the context of discussion that preceded which we have pointed out above. As per this, no doubt, there is no absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition even in contractual matters or where there are disputed questions of fact or even when monetary claim is raised. At the same time, discretion lies with the High Court which under certain circumstances, it can refuse to exercise. It also follows that under the following circumstances, "normally", the Court would not exercise such a discretion:
69.1. The Court may not examine the issue unless the action has some public law character attached to it. 69.2. Whenever a particular mode of settlement of dispute is provided in the contract, the High Court would refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and relegate the party to the said mode of settlement, particularly when settlement of disputes is to be resorted to through the means of arbitration.
69.3. If there are very serious disputed questions of fact which are of complex nature and require oral evidence for their determination.
69.4. Money claims per se particularly arising out of contractual obligations are normally not to be entertained except in exceptional circumstances.
70. Further, the legal position which emerges from various Judgments of this Court dealing with different situations/aspects relating to contracts entered into by the State/public authority with private parties, can be summarised as under:
70.1. At the stage of entering into a contract, the State acts purely in its executive capacity and is bound by the obligations of fairness.
70.2. State in its executive capacity, even in the contractual field, is under obligation to act fairly and cannot practise some discriminations.
70.3. Even in cases where question is of choice or consideration of competing claims before entering into the field of contract, facts have to be investigated and found before the question of a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution could arise. If those facts are disputed and require assessment of evidence the correctness of which can only be tested satisfactorily by taking detailed evidence, involving examination and cross-examination of witnesses, the case could not be conveniently or satisfactorily decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In such cases the Court can direct the Wpc 2428 of 2026 10 aggrieved party to resort to alternate remedy of civil suit, etc. 70.4. Writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was not intended to facilitate avoidance of obligation voluntarily incurred.
70.5. Writ petition was not maintainable to avoid contractual obligation. Occurrence of commercial difficulty, inconvenience or hardship in performance of the conditions agreed to in the contract can provide no justification in not complying with the terms of contract which the parties had accepted with open eyes. It cannot ever be that a licensee can work out the licence if he finds it profitable to do so:
and he can challenge the conditions under which he agreed to take the licence, if he finds it commercially inexpedient to conduct his business.
70.6. Ordinarily, where a breach of contract is complained of, the party complaining of such breach may sue for specific performance of the contract, if contract is capable of being specifically performed. Otherwise, the party may sue for damages.
70.7. Writ can be issued where there is executive action unsupported by law or even in respect of a corporation there is denial of equality before law or equal protection of law or if it can be shown that action of the public authorities was without giving any hearing and violation of principles of natural justice after holding that action could not have been taken without observing principles of natural justice. 70.8. If the and the contract between private party State/instrumentality and/or agency of the State is under the realm of a private law and there is no element of public law, the normal course for the aggrieved party, is to invoke the remedies provided under ordinary civil law rather than approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction.
70.9. The distinction between public law and private law element in the contract with the State is getting blurred.
However, it has not been totally obliterated and where the matter falls purely in private field of contract, this Court has maintained the position that writ petition is not maintainable. The dichotomy between public law and private law rights and remedies would depend on the factual matrix of each case and the distinction between the public law remedies and private law field, cannot be demarcated with precision. In fact, each case has to be examined, on its facts whether the contractual relations between the parties bear insignia of public element. Once Wpc 2428 of 2026 11 on the facts of a particular case it is found that nature of the activity or controversy involves public law element, then the matter can be examined by the High Court in writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to see whether action of the State and/or instrumentality or agency of the State is fair, just and equitable or that relevant factors are taken into consideration and irrelevant factors have not gone into the decision-making process or that the decision is not arbitrary.
70.10. Mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirements of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness. 70.11. The scope of judicial review in respect of disputes falling within the domain of contractual obligations may be more limited and in doubtful cases the parties may be relegated to adjudication of their rights by resort to remedies provided for adjudication of purely contractual disputes."
10. From the pleadings of the parties and the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing on their behalf, it is apparent that the controversy involved in the present petition arises out of a contract executed between the petitioner and the respondent authorities relating to operation of Mobile Medical Units (MMUs). The allegations made by the petitioner with regard to arbitrary change of conditions, delay in issuance of SOP, obstruction in execution of work, readiness of vehicles, entitlement of payments and legality of termination are all seriously disputed by the respondents and would necessarily require appreciation of evidence and examination of factual aspects, which cannot conveniently be undertaken in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. It is also not in dispute that the agreement executed between the Wpc 2428 of 2026 12 parties contains an arbitration clause providing a specific mechanism for redressal of disputes arising out of the contract. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions, including Joshi Technologies International Inc. (supra), has consistently held that where the dispute pertains to contractual obligations involving disputed questions of fact and where an efficacious alternative remedy by way of arbitration is available, the High Court should ordinarily refrain from exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
12. Though learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to contend that the impugned action suffers from arbitrariness and violation of principles of natural justice, however, from perusal of the record, it appears that notices were issued by the respondent authorities and replies were also submitted by the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order. Whether the replies submitted by the petitioner were properly considered or whether the grounds assigned in the order of cancellation are justified, are matters which would again require detailed adjudication on factual issues and contractual obligations between the parties. Such disputed issues cannot be effectively adjudicated in summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
13. It is well settled that writ jurisdiction is not intended to adjudicate purely contractual disputes involving rival claims for payments, damages, performance of contractual terms, or alleged breach of conditions, particularly when the parties have consciously agreed to a contractual dispute resolution mechanism. The relief sought by the petitioner for Wpc 2428 of 2026 13 release of outstanding payments, refund of forfeited EMD and quashment of termination order essentially flows from contractual rights and obligations, adjudication whereof would require leading of evidence and interpretation of contractual clauses.
14. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Motors Limited (supra), State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. (supra), ABL International Ltd. (supra) and Joshi Technologies International Inc. (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties, the present writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed with liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available under the agreement, including arbitration, in accordance with law.
16. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy and all issues are left open to be agitated before the appropriate forum. No order as to cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
padma