ORDER : Parth Prateem Sahu, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 05.04.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No. 77 of 2015 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1/petitioner was allowed directing the appellants to make payment of the entire amount to the respondent No.1/petitioner at the contractual rate for the remaining 5 piece works and to pay respondent No.1/petitioner the entire amount with respect to 10 piece works at the contractual rate. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the respondent No.1/petitioner is a registered A-4 Class Contractor in the Water Resources Department. In the year 2011-12, the respondent No.1/petitioner was awarded 36 number of piece works of Left Bank and Right Bank of Indrawati river near Old Bridge at Jagdalpur for construction of retaining wall, CC pitching work and 8th down stream & upstream of Anicut for different lengths. Work value of each piece work was Rs.2.5 lakhs. Agreements for all 36 piece works were executed on 30.03.2011 and period for completion of the works were fixed as 15.06.2011. Respondent No.1 claimed to have completed the entire work within the prescribed period and requested for disbursement of the entire bill amount. As per valuation and completion of 21 piece works, out of total 36 piece works, a sum amounting to Rs.46,26,690/- was paid to the respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 demanded the balance undisputed amount vide representation dated 29.11.2014. The appellants failed to release the amount as demanded by the respondent No.1 and therefore, he approached this Court by way of filing writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 77 of 2015 with following reliefs :- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records, pertaining to case of petitioner works. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs or direction to respondent No.3 to release the entire undisputed amount which is illegally detain by the respondent No.3/4, with the suitable compensation as deem fit by this Hon’ble Court. 10.3 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs or direction to respondent No.3/4 to pay suitable rate of interest upon detained amount, as deem fit by this Hon’ble Court from the date of completion of work. 10.3 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs or direction to respondent No.3/4 to pay suitable rate of interest upon detained amount, as deem fit by this Hon’ble Court from the date of completion of work. 10.4 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to punish the respondent No.4 for his mala-fide action and respondent No.1 for his inaction spite of received the copy of this Hon’ble Court passed W.P.(C) 1696/2014. 10.5 Cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 3. Appellants submitted counter affidavit to the writ petition denying the claim of the respondent No.1/petitioner. It was further pleaded that payment with respect to 21 piece works was made to the respondent No.1/petitioner and for 10 piece works, payment is made as per reduced rate in SOR as agreed by the respondent No.1/petitioner. Remaining 5 piece works were not completed. The respondent No.1/petitioner accepted amount due for work of 31 piece works without any protest. 4. Learned Single Judge while considering the rival claim of the parties, allowed the writ petition by the order impugned. The appellants (department) have challenged the order impugned on the ground that it is perverse, unjust and unreasonable. The direction issued for payment of entire amount at contractual rate for the remaining 5 piece works and direction to make payment to the respondent No.1 at contractual rate for 10 piece work is, overlooking the undertaking given by the respondent No.1 as also the order dated 23.03.2011, passed by the office of Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department amending SOR. It was further pleaded that the learned Single Judge erred in directing the appellants to make payment of 5 piece works, which was even not started by the respondent No.1/petitioner despite extension of time. 5. Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that in the facts of the case, writ petition claiming payment of the amount due against execution of the work under contract is not maintainable. The undisputed amount was already paid to the respondent No.1/petitioner after valuing the work completed by him. Respondent No.1 was awarded total 36 piece works on contract, out of which 21 piece works were done within the extended period, he gave undertaking to accept payment at amended/reduced rates. The undisputed amount was already paid to the respondent No.1/petitioner after valuing the work completed by him. Respondent No.1 was awarded total 36 piece works on contract, out of which 21 piece works were done within the extended period, he gave undertaking to accept payment at amended/reduced rates. Respondent No.1/petitioner was able to execute only 10 piece works out of balance 15 piece works and 5 piece works were not even started. It is contended that the appellants disputed the factual pleadings made by the respondent No.1/petitioner in the writ petition and hence when the disputed facts are involved, writ petition seeking relief for payment of amount due under the contract ought not to have been entertained. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/petitioner (Contractor) opposing the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants/employer after getting the work done by him, under contract, was avoiding payment for one or the other reason. Initially the respondent No.1 was paid Rs.44,26,690/- on 11.09.2011. Subsequently, the appellants issued a recovery order dated 02.04.2013 mentioning that excess payment of Rs.5,38,145/- was made to the respondent No.1. Recovery order issued to the respondent No.1 was challenged in the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 512 of 2013. Writ petition was allowed and the said recovery order was quashed. Appellants, thereafter, issued show cause notice to which the respondent No.1 submitted his reply. Being not satisfied with the reply submitted by the respondent No.1, appellants again passed an order for recovery of the amount on 03.09.2014. The said order was again put to challenge in W.P. (C) No. 1696 of 2014. The writ petition came up for hearing on 14.11.2014, wherein the recovery order passed against the respondent No.1 dated 03.09.2013 and 18.07.2014 were quashed observing that the show cause notice was based on no-nest grounds, but even then the appellants have not made the entire payment of the work done by the respondent No.1/petitioner. He contended that the learned Single Judge, after going through the pleadings and the documents placed on record minutely, arrived at a conclusion that the respondent No.1 is entitled for the entire amount at the contractual rate. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents placed along with the writ petition as well as the writ appeal. 8. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents placed along with the writ petition as well as the writ appeal. 8. Perusal of the pleadings made in the writ petition would show that the respondent No.1/petitioner pleaded that he was awarded 36 piece works on 30.03.2011 and entire 36 piece works were completed by him within the specified time frame but the final bill amount was not paid to him. The appellants, along with their reply, have submitted the details of the payment made to the respondent No.1 for the agreements, which are 21 in numbers with date of payment and amount admissible as per measurement of piece work to the tune of Rs.44,26,690/-. Annexure A-3 is the letter dated 27.05.2011 for extension of time written by the respondent No.1/petitioner. Annexure A-4 is the letter written by Engineer-in-Chief on 23.03.2011 reducing the rate with effect from 01.04.2011. Further, Annexure A-5 is the letter and undertaking given by the respondent No.1/petitioner dated 30.05.2011 that he is agreeable to accept the payment with amended/reduced rate which came into force with effect from 01.04.2011. 9. From perusal of aforementioned documents placed on record along with reply filed by the appellants/State, it is apparent that respondent No.1/petitioner vide Annexure R-3 wrote letter for extension of time mentioning that work order was executed in his favour on 30.03.2011 and the date for completion of work was fixed as 15.06.2011, but due to parliamentary election, work could not be started till 15.05.2011 and now the materials have been collected but due to upcoming rainy season, it was not possible for him to start work and requested for extension of time for completion of work till 30.03.2012. Respondent No.1 further wrote letter on 30.05.2011 showing his intention that he is agreeable to accept payment with amended/reduced rates that came into force from 01.04.2011 for all the works executed by him after expiry of the initial completion period of the agreement. 10. Respondent No.1 submitted rejoinder to the reply affidavit submitted by the appellants pleading that the amended schedule of rate which came into force with effect from 01.04.2011 can not affect the terms and conditions of the agreement. In the affidavit, it has been wrongly mentioned that respondent No.1/petitioner appended his signature with respect to reduced schedule of rate. 10. Respondent No.1 submitted rejoinder to the reply affidavit submitted by the appellants pleading that the amended schedule of rate which came into force with effect from 01.04.2011 can not affect the terms and conditions of the agreement. In the affidavit, it has been wrongly mentioned that respondent No.1/petitioner appended his signature with respect to reduced schedule of rate. In rejoinder, the respondent No.1 has not dealt with the documents Annexure R-3 and Annexure R-5 placed on record along with reply affidavit and pleaded that issue of remaining 15 piece works has already been considered by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1696 of 2014 in para-6. 11. Earlier two writ petitions as stated to have been filed by the respondent No.1 i.e. W.P.(C) No. 512 of 2013 and W.P.(C) No. 1696 of 2014 are on different cause of action. The first writ petition, which was filed in the year 2013, was against the recovery order dated 02.04.2013, which was quashed by this Court taking into consideration that opportunity of hearing was not provided to the petitioner therein by issuing show cause notice and there was violation of principles of natural justice. The second writ petition came to be filed when the reply submitted by the petitioner therein based on show cause notice issued to him for recovery of excess payment was not found to be satisfactory and issued order on 03.09.2013 and 18.07.2014 for recovery of the excess amount paid to the respondent No.1. The issue under consideration before the Court in both the writ petitions was the orders under challenge for recovery of excess payment of Rs.5,38,145/-. 12. Perusal of the order dated 14.11.2014 in W.P.(C) No. 1696 of 2014 (Annexure P-5) would show that the petitioner therein (contractor) raised a ground that the order of recovery is based on only audit objection by Accountant General and not an independent decision. The counsel appearing for State in that petition has made submission that as there was audit objection, recovery has to be made. Before the Court in that writ petition, it was not stated on behalf of State that reduction of SOR is prior to the date of entering into the agreement. In the original period of agreement work was not commenced. Before the Court in that writ petition, it was not stated on behalf of State that reduction of SOR is prior to the date of entering into the agreement. In the original period of agreement work was not commenced. That apart the contractor before starting of work gave undertaking and consent that he is agreeable to accept payment on amended SOR which came into effect from 01.04.2011 (as appearing from Annexure R-4 and R5). For the aforementioned facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the subject matter and facts under consideration in the earlier writ petitions filed by the respondent No.1 is entirely different than the subject matter and issue raised by the State in this writ petition for payment of amount allegedly due to the respondent No.1/petitioner for the work stated to have been completed by him under an agreement. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the respondent No.1 that the subject matter in the writ petition had already been considered and decided in earlier writ petitions is not acceptable. 13. The appellants in their reply have disputed the amount due to be paid to the respondent No.1/petitioner specifically pleading that for 21 piece works, payment was made as per measurement. For 10 piece works, amount as per amended schedule of rates were paid and 5 piece works were not started by the respondent No.1/ petitioner. In view of the aforementioned specific pleadings in the counter affidavit by the appellants, it can not be said that any undisputed amount is remaining to be paid to the respondent No.1, more so, when the petitioner in the writ petition has not specifically pleaded as to what is the amount due to him and against, which work, out of 36 piece works awarded to him. 14. Learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition observing as under :- “15 Considering the history of previous litigation and the observations made by this Court against the State of it being involved in an avoidable litigation and further that the State should not resort to litigation for the sake of litigation or raise false, frivolous and technical pleas and nothing should be suppressed from the Court, this Court would allow the Writ Petition with respect to remaining 5 piece works. 16. 16. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to make payment of the entire amount to the petitioner at the contractual rate for the remaining 5 piece work. Similarly, the petitioner be paid the entire amount at the contractual rate for 10 piece work for which he has been paid the amount as per the amended SOR and not as per the contractual rate.” 15. In view of the facts and documents available on record particularly Annexure R-3, Annexure R-4 and Annexure R-5, as also the pleadings made by the appellants that the respondent No.1/petitioner had even not started the work of 5 piece works, in the opinion of this Court, disputed question of facts are involved in the writ petition, which can only be decided by oral and documentary evidence in appropriate proceedings. More so, when signature in one of the “documents” of the respondent No.1/petitioner is denied by him in rejoinder. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.L.F. Housing Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Municipal Corpn. And Others, reported in (1976) 3 SCC 160 held that “in case where the basic facts are disputed and complicated questions of law and fact depending on evidence are involved, the writ court is not the proper forum for seeking relief. The right course for the High Court to follow, was to dismiss the writ petition on this preliminary ground without entering upon the merits of the case. In absence of firm and adequate factual foundation, it was hazardous to embark upon a determination of the points involved”. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Joshi Technologies International Inc. V. Union of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 728 held that in pure contractual matters the extraordinary remedy of writ under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution can not be invoked. 18. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Puna Hinda, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 690 , while considering appeal filed by the employer against the order passed by the Division Bench of High Court directing to pay the pending bills on the basis of the final joint survey measurement report, held that the dispute as to whether the amount is payable or not and/or how much amount is payable are disputed questions of fact and held thus :- “24. Therefore, the dispute could not be raised by way of a writ petition on the disputed questions of fact. Though, the jurisdiction of the High Court is wide but in respect of pure contractual matters in the field of private law, having no statutory flavour, are better adjudicated upon by the forum agreed to by the parties. The dispute as to whether the amount is payable or not and/or how much amount is payable are disputed questions of facts. There is no admission on the part of the appellants to infer that the amount stands crystallised. Therefore, in the absence of any acceptance of joint survey report by the competent authority, no right would accrue to the writ petitioner only because measurements cannot be undertaken after passage of time. Maybe, the resurvey cannot take place but the measurement books of the work executed from time to time would form a reasonable basis for assessing the amount due and payable to the writ petitioner, but such process could be undertaken only by the agreed forum i.e. arbitration and not by the writ court as it does not have the expertise in respect of measurements or construction of roads.” 19. In case at hand also, in the writ petition, respondent No.1/petitioner has not specifically pleaded as to what is the amount due and under which agreement, while there is pleading that the respondent No.1/petitioner was awarded 36 piece works, the appellant/respondent in reply pleaded that 5 piece works were not even started. Petitioner also denied his signature in the document filed in the record. 20. For the forgoing discussions, we are of the view that the disputed question of facts are involved in the writ petition and the claim of payment of amount due towards the work order executed in favour of the respondent No.1/petitioner can be decided only after bringing oral and documentary evidence on record. Learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition directing the appellants to make payments. The order impugned, therefore, is set-aside. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Respondent No.1/petitioner will be at liberty to take recourse available to him under law for redressal of his grievance raised in the writ petition, if so advised. 21. Accordingly, writ appeal stands allowed. No cost.