Article 226 writ relief unavailable for disputed contractual dues lacking proof of work completion and admitted liability.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not appropriate for adjudicating a disputed contractual claim for payment and refund where entitlement depends on contested facts. The petitioners produced no completion certificate or other foundational documentary proof to show completion of the work or an admitted liability for the amounts claimed. Because the dispute required factual determination on execution of the contract and quantification of dues, the HC declined to entertain the monetary claim and refused relief, leaving the petitioners to pursue remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking payment of contractual dues and refund of deposit could be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the claim was disputed on facts and unsupported by a completion certificate.

Analysis: The claim was founded on alleged completion of work and asserted dues, but no documentary material was produced to establish completion of the contractual work or to show that the claimed amount was an admitted liability. The existence of a factual dispute regarding execution of the work and quantification of dues made the controversy unsuitable for determination in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 and did not grant the monetary relief sought.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of, leaving the petitioners free to pursue remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where entitlement to contractual payment depends on disputed questions of fact and the claim is not supported by foundational documentary proof, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked for adjudication of the monetary dispute.

---