JUDGMENT : The present case is taken up through Video Conferencing. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of direction upon the State respondents for making Payment of balance dues of bill to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 1,36,57,087/- in relation to the work done by it as per the Agreement No. SBD-01/2016-17 executed between the Executive Engineer, Minor Distribution Division No. 5, Jamshedpur (the respondent no. 6) and the petitioner. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the State respondents to take decision on the representations of the petitioner along with final bill submitted by it after final measurement done by the respondent no.6. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing letter no. 653 dated 31.07.2019 issued by the respondent no. 6 to the extent of initiating any coercive proceeding against it, if any. The petitioner has further prayed for staying the proceeding instituted against it by respondent no. 7 in O.A No. 70 of 2019 for recovery of outstanding dues against the cash credit facility for various government constructions which was enhanced in view of the Agreement No. SBD-01/2016-17, but the same could not be repaid due to non-payment of its bills by the respondent no. 6. 3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand (respondent no.3) had floated a tender with regard to construction of intake Sump house, construction of pump house, construction of Head Regulator, supply and erection of Water Rising Pipe Line to VAT-1 & VAT II, construction of supplying, installation and commissioning of HSCF Pumps Set Motors and Accessories & construction of Operator Room and Boundary Wall for OL-38, Ex-Km. 85.47 of CLMC. The petitioner participated in the said tender process and submitted its bid which was accepted by the respondent no. 3 and a communication for allotment of work was sent to the petitioner vide letter No. 209 dated 10.02.2016 issued under signature of the respondent no. 4 with a direction to complete the process by depositing the performance security for an amount equivalent to Rs.30.48 Lacs in favour of the respondent no.- 6 and execution of contract document with the said respondent. The respondent no. 6 vide letter no. 4 with a direction to complete the process by depositing the performance security for an amount equivalent to Rs.30.48 Lacs in favour of the respondent no.- 6 and execution of contract document with the said respondent. The respondent no. 6 vide letter no. 184 dated 16.03.2016 also made similar communication to the petitioner regarding allotment of work by depositing the amount of performance security which was 2% of cost of work amounting Rs.30.48 Lacs. The petitioner furnished the requisite security and entered into a contract with the respondent no. 6 for the said work. The work order was accordingly issued by the respondent no. 6 vide letter no. 219 dated 06.04.2016 itself. As per the agreement no. SBD-01/2016-17, the same was valued at Rs. 15,23,76,558.93 and time for completion of the work was fixed as 730 days i.e till 05.04.2018. The respondent no. 6 issued letter no. 246 dated 11.04.2016 wherein he asked the petitioner for ensuring the compliance regarding Construction Programme, Insurance and Quality Control as per the said agreement which was replied by the petitioner vide letter dated 02.06.2016. The said project involved laying of Ductile Iron Pipes of 500 mm diameter (Class K9, Quantity-5156 meters) and Ductile Iron Pipe of 1000 mm diameter (Class K9, Quantity-3725 meters). These pipes were valued at around Rs.9,73,87,348.90 which formed a major part of the total project cost of Rs.15,23,76,558.93. Under Clause 11 of the SBD, the said pipes were required for the project subject to exemption of excise duty for which a certificate from the project authority was required to be issued i.e. from the respondent no. 5. The price quoted for D.I. pipes were excluding the excise duty. The petitioner made application before the respondent no. 6 to forward the same to respondent no. 5 for issuance of PAC (Project Authority Certificate). The respondent no.6 forwarded the same vide his letter no. 277 dated 28.04.2016 with a copy to the petitioner. The petitioner again made representation before the respondent no.6 and other authorities i.e the respondent nod. 2 and 5 for taking necessary steps to issue PAC for excise duty exemption or to order for re-imbursement of excise duty. Finally, the PAC was issued on 22.06.2017 by the respondent no. 5 which was supplied to the petitioner on 24.06.2017 i.e. expiry of 444 days. 2 and 5 for taking necessary steps to issue PAC for excise duty exemption or to order for re-imbursement of excise duty. Finally, the PAC was issued on 22.06.2017 by the respondent no. 5 which was supplied to the petitioner on 24.06.2017 i.e. expiry of 444 days. In the meantime, G.S.T. was scheduled to be introduced with effect from 01.07.2017, therefore the petitioner requested the Chief Engineer, Subernarekha Project on 28.06.2017 as well as the Principal Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Jharkhand on 29.06.2017 that the certificate of excise duty exemption would be no longer applicable after coming into force of G.S.T. and thus requested to reissue the certificate as per the G.S.T. norms. After coming into force of G.S.T., the petitioner made representation on 03.07.2017 before the respondent no. 6 as well as the Superintending Engineer, Dam Circle, Chandil to revise the rates as per G.S.T. norms, however the same was not responded by the said authorities and the petitioner proceeded with the work of pipe laying in anticipation of issuance of necessary order that the G.S.T. on such pipes would be waived off on a later date, however the same was not waived. The petitioner had written letter to the respondent no. 6 on 01.04.2016 i.e. prior to signing of the contract and at the time of submitting security deposit highlighting the problem that might arise due to non-acquisition of land for which the respondent no. 6 had assured the petitioner that the same would be done very soon but the said authority failed to keep his promise. The petitioner also faced problems from local inhabitants due to non–acquisition of land which was informed to the respondent no. 6 again on 02.06.2016 while submitting its construction programme. The petitioner had also reported the local police and the Superintendent of Police (Rural), East Singhbhum Jamshedpur as well as the respondent no. 6 about local hindrance and theft committed by local persons which severely disturbed the work, however no action was taken by the said authorities. The petitioner also requested the respondent no. 6 time and again through telephonic call to provide adequate security to it and for acquisition of land so as to end the local hindrance, which would be evident from the petitioner’s letter dated 26.05.2017, however the said authorities did not show any interest in resolving the said issue. The petitioner also requested the respondent no. 6 time and again through telephonic call to provide adequate security to it and for acquisition of land so as to end the local hindrance, which would be evident from the petitioner’s letter dated 26.05.2017, however the said authorities did not show any interest in resolving the said issue. Due to such apathy shown by the respondent authorities, the said work could not be completed in time which compelled the petitioner to apply for extension of time on 06.02.2018 and 15.03.2018. Though no formal letter was issued to the petitioner granting extension of time but the respondent department continued with the S.B.D and made payment of running bills to the petitioner till March, 2019. Part of the bill was also paid to the petitioner even after expiry of the contract period, hence the petitioner continued with the said work in anticipation of approval of extension of time. In the meantime, a proposal for closure of the contract and final measurement was made by respondent no.6 vide letter no. 406 dated 20.04.2019. Since there was non-cooperation on the part of respondent authorities and the cost of the materials and labour also got escalated, the petitioner accepted the proposal of closure of contract and final measurement in view of letter no. 406 dated 20.04.2019. As per schedule, final measurement was done on 29.04.2019 which was accepted by the petitioner and a representation was given to the respondent no. 6 vide letter dated 22.05.2019 for providing the copy of final bill so that claim could be made with respect to legally payable outstanding dues. The petitioner submitted its bill before the respondent no. 6 on 26.07.2019 and requested the said authority for making payment at the earliest taking into consideration its financial hardship. The respondent no. 6, thereafter, informed the petitioner vide letter no. 653 dated 31.07.2019 that the agreement was terminated and necessary action was initiated as per law. Subsequently, the respondent no. 7 also initiated proceeding for issuance of certificate of recovery along with other related issues in O.A No. 70 of 2019 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed I.A. no. 1264 of 2020 seeking addition of prayer to quash the letter no. Subsequently, the respondent no. 7 also initiated proceeding for issuance of certificate of recovery along with other related issues in O.A No. 70 of 2019 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed I.A. no. 1264 of 2020 seeking addition of prayer to quash the letter no. 18/Jamshedpur dated 07.01.2020 along with its enclosures whereby a demand notice of Rs.3,45,92,551/- under the head of 20% penalty on remaining work and 10% of Agreement Value as liquidated damage was raised, moreover the petitioner was asked to deposit Rs.2,84,58,206/- within 15 days after adjusting Rs.61,34,345/- already deducted from its bill. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the work could not be completed within time only due to non-cooperation on the part of the State respondents as the same occurred on account of non-acquisition of land, non-granting of excise exemption certificate, non-sanction of lead plan of earthen residue in time, non-sanctioning of motor design in time and other issues for which the petitioner had written several letters to respondents. The action of the respondent authorities in issuance of letter No. 18/Jamshedpur dated 07.01.2020 making a demand notice of Rs. 3,45,92,551/- is highly arbitrary as no specific breach of contract has been done by the petitioner. Though there is a reference of specific breach of the contract as per Clause 59.1 and 59.2 of the conditions of contract mentioned in termination letter dated 31.07.2019, the respondent authorities themselves offered the petitioner for closure of contract and final measurement which it reluctantly accepted. The reason behind accepting the offer of closure of contract at the instance of the petitioner was due to severe financial hardship being faced by it and due to lackadaisical approach of the respondent authorities. The allotted work suffered gross delay mainly due to the fact that the respondent authorities were not completing the process of land acquisition in time, not providing PAC (Project Authority Certificate) and exemption of excise duty in time as well as the design of the pump motors etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents committed huge delay in providing certificate of quality assurance, electrification work, approval of design work and foundation of electrical motor as well as non-sanction of lead plan of earthen residue etc. for which the petitioner had requested time and again. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents committed huge delay in providing certificate of quality assurance, electrification work, approval of design work and foundation of electrical motor as well as non-sanction of lead plan of earthen residue etc. for which the petitioner had requested time and again. Several other related works were also ordered on the site order book, which were not in the agreement and the bills of additionally ordered work were not prepared by department. The petitioner has legal right to get its legitimate dues of Rs.1,36,57,087/- accrued towards the work executed by it under Agreement No. SBD-01/2016-17. The respondents have no authority to withhold the petitioner’s payments once the work completed by it has been acknowledged by State authorities and the final measurement has been done. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents submits that no cause of action ever accrued in favour of the petitioner to invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction and as such the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner and the State respondents are bound by the terms of the SBD and as such the State authorities have every right to take lawful action against the petitioner for the delay committed by it in execution of the work. The work in question was to be completed on or before 05.04.2018 and the petitioner was given ample opportunities to complete the work, however it failed to do the same, rather only 32% work has been executed by it, that too, with several infirmities. Hence, the final measurement was done in presence of the petitioner’s representative on 29.04.2019 and the contract was terminated as per direction of the Administrator, Subernarekha Multipurpose Project, Aditayapur, Jamshedpur issued vide memo no. 484 dated 24.07.2018 and the letter issued by the respondent no. 3 vide letter no. 797 dated 20.06.2019, in view of clause 59 of the SBD. The respondent authorities repeatedly issued directions to the petitioner to complete the work, but it failed to comply the same. It is also submitted that in pursuance of direction given by the Administrator, Subernarekha Multipurpose Project, Aditayapur, Jamshedpur, the Superintending Engineer, Subernarekha Dam Circle, Chandil had issued an ultimatum to the petitioner vide letter no. 364 dated 28.02.2019 to complete the work failing which the contract would be terminated and security deposit made by it would be forfeited. It is also submitted that in pursuance of direction given by the Administrator, Subernarekha Multipurpose Project, Aditayapur, Jamshedpur, the Superintending Engineer, Subernarekha Dam Circle, Chandil had issued an ultimatum to the petitioner vide letter no. 364 dated 28.02.2019 to complete the work failing which the contract would be terminated and security deposit made by it would be forfeited. Lastly, the respondent no. 6 vide letter no. 406 dated 20.04.2019 indicated that the petitioner did not seem interested in completion of work as the construction was completely stopped since 10.03.2019 and there existed no raw material on the work site. Thus, the date for final measurement was fixed on 29.04.2019 and the petitioner was accordingly intimated. Learned counsel for the State respondents further submits that in Clause-12 of the NIT, it was already clarified that the bidders may visit and examine the work sites as well as may obtain all necessary information for preparing the bid, hence the petitioner cannot be permitted to agitate any such difficulty allegedly faced by it at the work site. Moreover, majority of the work involved was laying of pipes more than 1.5 meters beneath the ground level for which land acquisition was not necessary. The permissions from the local people and concerned authorities were already taken, however the petitioner repeatedly insisted for resolving the land acquisition issue as an excuse not to proceed with the work and to justify the delay caused in completion of the project. The petitioner was already explained vide letter no. 42 dated 17.06.2016 that the local people in five out of six villages had already agreed for the work of laying of pipes and hence it was requested to commence the work without any delay. So far as the issue of agitation of villagers is concerned, the same occurred due to non-completion of the backfilling during the laying of pipes. It is further submitted that as per the earlier norms, the petitioner was issued the PAC, however after implementation of GST, the petitioner was never assured that the said exemption would be available under GST. In fact, the said ground has been agitated by the petitioner just to delay the work on one pretext or other. The respondent no. 6 vide letter no. In fact, the said ground has been agitated by the petitioner just to delay the work on one pretext or other. The respondent no. 6 vide letter no. 429 dated 29.06.2016 informed the petitioner that sufficient land was available for construction of quality Test Lab as well as for HR intake sump house and pump house. The said fact was informed to the petitioner even earlier, however it took excuse regarding ensuing monsoon season and did not commence the work. So far as the electrical work is concerned, the required fund was already paid to the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Ghatshila for installation of power house and other related works. Lead plan proposal and design of motor pump drawing were also submitted to the Superintending Engineer, Subernrekha Dam Circle, Chandil, but the petitioner did not complete the construction of the sump house and the pump house. The Junior Engineer, Minor Distribution Sub-Division No.-2, Dimna, Jamshedpur, vide letter no. 119 dated 24.12.2019 wrote to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Minor Distribution Sub-Division no.-2, Dimna, Jamshedpur and gave a detailed reply regarding the demands raised by the petitioner vide its letter dated 26.07.2019. As per Clause- 60 of the SBD, if the contract is terminated due to fundamental breach of contract by the contractor, the Engineer has to issue a certificate for the value of the work done less all advance payments, due recoveries in terms of the contract, taxes due to be deducted at source as per applicable law as well as less the percentage which applies to the work not completed as indicated in the Contract Data (20% as indicated in the Contract Data). Further, the respondent-State is also entitled to liquidate damages as per Clause- 49 of the SBD. The petitioner owes an amount of Rs. 1,93,54,895/- as per Clause 60 of the SBD read with Sl. No. 40 of the checklist in the contract data and Rs. 1,52,37,656/- on account of 10% liquidated damage. The said fact has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter no. 18 dated 07.01.2020. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. The petitioner has sought direction from this court for payment of its unpaid bills in relation to the work in question claiming the same to be legitimate and payable. 9. 18 dated 07.01.2020. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. The petitioner has sought direction from this court for payment of its unpaid bills in relation to the work in question claiming the same to be legitimate and payable. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a very recent judgment rendered in the case of Punjab National Bank and Others Versus Atmanand Singh and Others reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 433, has held as under:- “17. The appellant-Bank has rightly invited our attention to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Thansingh Nathmal (supra). In paragraph 7, the Court dealt with the scope of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in the following words:— “7. … The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions except the territorial restrictions which are expressly provided in the Articles. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary: it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self-imposed limitations. Resort that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Ordinarily the Court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226, where the petitioner has an alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Again the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up. (emphasis supplied) Similarly, another Constitution Bench decision in Suganmal (supra) dealt with the scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In paragraph 6 of the said decision, the Court observed thus:— “6. On the first point, we are of opinion that though the High Courts have power to pass any appropriate order in the exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, such a petition solely praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State to refund the money is not ordinarily maintainable for the simple reason that a claim for such a refund can always be made in a suit against the authority which had illegally collected the money as a tax. … We do not find any good reason to extend this principle and therefore hold that no petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus will be normally entertained for the purpose of merely ordering a refund of money to the return of which the petitioner claims a right.” (emphasis supplied) And again, in paragraph 9, the Court observed as follows:— “9. We therefore hold that normally petitions solely praying for the refund of money against the State by a writ of mandamus are not to be entertained. The aggrieved party has the right of going to the civil court for claiming the amount and it is open to the State to raise all possible defences to the claim, defences which cannot, in most cases, be appropriately raised and considered in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.” (emphasis supplied) In Smt. GunwantKaur (supra) relied upon by the respondent No. 1, in paragraph 14, the Court observed thus:— “14. The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit in reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner's right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, where the High Court is of the view that the petition is frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made dispute sought to be agitated, or that the petition against the party against whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or for anologous reasons.” (emphasis supplied) We restate the above position that when the petition raises questions of fact of complex nature, such as in the present case, which may for their determination require oral and documentary evidence to be produced and proved by the concerned party and also because the relief sought is merely for ordering a refund of money, the High Court should be loath in entertaining such writ petition and instead must relegate the parties to remedy of a civil suit. Had it been a case where material facts referred to in the writ petition are admitted facts or indisputable facts, the High Court may be justified in examining the claim of the writ petitioner on its own merits in accordance with law. 10. In the case of “Joshi Technologies International Inc. Vs. Had it been a case where material facts referred to in the writ petition are admitted facts or indisputable facts, the High Court may be justified in examining the claim of the writ petitioner on its own merits in accordance with law. 10. In the case of “Joshi Technologies International Inc. Vs. Union of India and others”, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 728 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “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.” 11. In the aforesaid cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the money claim arising out of contractual obligation should not ordinarily be entertained by the writ court barring exceptional circumstances. 12. In case of admitted facts, the writ court may grant relief to the petitioner by examining the case on its own merit. Though the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature, yet the same should not be exercised if the alternative remedy of approaching the civil court/other forum is available to the petitioner. 12. In case of admitted facts, the writ court may grant relief to the petitioner by examining the case on its own merit. Though the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature, yet the same should not be exercised if the alternative remedy of approaching the civil court/other forum is available to the petitioner. When the claim for refund of money is made through a writ petition and the question of fact is so complex, which requires production of documents and leading of evidences, the High Court should relegate the parties to seek remedy of a civil suit/alternative forum. 13. Now reverting back to the facts of the present case and on analyzing the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank (supra), it would emerge that as per the petitioner’s contention, the execution of work got delayed due to indifferent approach of the respondent authorities. It is also contended by the petitioner that it faced several difficulties while executing the work in question i.e. delay in granting excise duty exemption certificate, certificate of quality assurance, electrification work, approval of design works and foundation of electrical motor as well as non-sanction of lead plan, land acquisition problem and dispute raised by the local inhabitants. All these grounds taken by the petitioner have specifically been denied by the respondent authorities in their counter affidavit stating inter alia that these are lame excuses of the petitioner to somehow justify the huge delay committed by it in completion of the work. It has specifically been stated in the counter affidavit that the action for recovery of the alleged demand vide letter dated 07.01.2020 has been made in accordance with the terms of the agreement after preparation of final bill and also on adjusting all the pending dues of the petitioner. Thus, the payment claimed by the petitioner is not based on admitted facts. As such, no relief can be granted to the petitioner keeping in view the ratio laid down in a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank (supra). Thus, the payment claimed by the petitioner is not based on admitted facts. As such, no relief can be granted to the petitioner keeping in view the ratio laid down in a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank (supra). Accordingly, keeping in view that the respondent authorities are also claiming overdue against the petitioner which has been demanded vide letter dated 07.01.2020 and both the parties have raised factual plea before this Court in support of their respective claim, the said dispute cannot be adjudicated under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to conclusively controvert the stand taken by the respondents that their action against the petitioner is in terms with the conditions of contract. The learned counsel for the petitioner has given much emphasis on the factual plea taken by the petitioner in the present writ petition, which cannot be entertained by the writ court. 14. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the parties are at liberty to take appropriate recourses as available under law keeping in view the terms of the contract/agreement. 15. I.A. No. 1264 of 2020 and I.A. No. 1265 of 2020 also stand dismissed accordingly.