JUDGMENT : YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J. Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Lalbuatsaiha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Mary L Khiangte, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to take immediate action as contemplated under clause 55.2 of the Standard Bidding Documents/GCC by closing all the 11 contract works awarded to the petitioner’s late father and to release all the amounts pending in connection with all the contract works mentioned in paragraph 4 of the writ petition with interest at the rate of 12.5 % per annum after adjusting the amount already released to the petitioner on 02.12.2024 as stated in paragraph 6 of the petition. 3. It is contended by the petitioner that he is the son of Lt. Biakliama who was the Contractor and was awarded as many as 11 contract works for construction of roads under PMGSY. However, before he could complete the contract works he passed away on 03.07.2022. 4. The petitioner being the son and nominee of the late Contractor expressed his unwillingness to continue with the remaining balance work by submitting representation to the respondents except for the work in respect of ‘construction of Phura to Vahai road’ (0.00-17.0 Kmp) package No.MZ07 912 group No.133. For this work, the petitioner was not a nominee but one Shri Malsawmtluanga was the nominee. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that as per clause 55.2 of the GCC, which formed part of the contract agreement between the employer and the Contractor, if the Contractor dies during the pendency of the contract or became permanently incapacitated, and his/her nominee are not willing to complete the contract, the contract shall be closed without levying any damages/compensation as provided for in clause 44 and 53 of the GCC. It is also provided in clause 55.2 that if the nominee expresses his/her intention to complete the balance work and the competent authority is satisfied about the competence of the nominee, then the competent authority shall enter into a fresh agreement for the remaining work strictly on the same terms and conditions under which the contract was initially awarded. 6. It is also provided in clause 55.2 that if the nominee expresses his/her intention to complete the balance work and the competent authority is satisfied about the competence of the nominee, then the competent authority shall enter into a fresh agreement for the remaining work strictly on the same terms and conditions under which the contract was initially awarded. 6. The petitioner in his writ petition has provided details of the 11 contract works which were allotted to his late father which is listed herein below:- Sl.N o Name of the work Agreement No Agreement Amount(In Rs.) Remarks 1. Construction of Jognasuri to Karlui Road 57/MIRR DA/2018 -19 888.95 Lakhs Completed 2. Construction of Sabualtlang to Hmawngbuchhuah Road().00- 1.76Kmp) Package 56/MIRR DA/2018 -19 244.22 lakhs completed 3. Construction of Nghalimlui to Balisora Road (3.00-5.00 Kmp) Package No.MZ04 91B 104/MIR RDA/201 7-18 2,49,17,142.63 Completed 4. Construction of Chhuarlung to Ainak Road (0.00-10.90 Kmp) Package No.MZ07 911 142/MIR RDA/201 7-18 8,35,87,397.45 Completed 5. Construction of Bunghmun to W Mualthuam Road (0.00- 13.50 Kmp) Package No.MZ06912 141/MiR RDA/201 7-18 8,64,81,131.30 Completed 6. Construction of Phura to Vahai Road(0.00-17.0 Kmp) Package No.MZ07 912 Group No.133) 95/MiRR DA/2017 -18 14,68,31,459.0 5 Incomplete (Request to terminate current contract submitted on 6/1/2023 7. Construction of Vasietlang to Maniababsora Road(00.00- 13.50 Kmp) Package No.MZ07912 3/MirrDA /2019- 2020 23,16,96447.7 9 Completed 8. Construction of Niawhtlang to Chakang Road(0.00-44.05 Kmp) Package No.MZ07 71 2/MIRR DA/2020 -21 16,15,33,485. 95 Incomplete (Unwillingnes s to continue execution submitted on 6/1/2023) RA- Bill-III &) RA- Bill-IV submitted on 22/2/2023 payment awaited 9. Construction of Nalkawn to RulkualRoadPackage No.MZ- 04 p@ 01 B 6/MiRRD A/PMGS Y- II/2019- 20 13.15 Crore Incomplete (Unwillingnes s to continue execution submitted on 6/1/2023) 10 Construction of Chawngte P to Hmunlai Road, Package No.MZ-04/74 7/MiRRD A/ 2013- 14 748.88 Lakhs Maintenance completed 11. Construction of Thingfal to Mamte Road, Package No.MZ- 05/714 4/MiRRD A/ 2013- 14 6,31,20,812.4 1 Lakhs Maintenance completed 7. It is also stated that inspite of the various representations made by the petitioner, the respondents did not take any action for closure of contract and for release of all deposits made by the late Contractor, such as, performance security deposits, unbalanced bid security deposits, security deposits, and RA Bills/BA bills pending as stipulated under clause 55.2 of the GCC. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition registered as W.P(C) 2/2024. 8. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition registered as W.P(C) 2/2024. 8. The said W.P(C) 2/2024 was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 16.7.2024 with a direction that the petitioner shall submit his claim before the respondents along with all details and supporting documents and the respondents upon receipt of the same would take necessary verification of the claim as per the Standard Bidding Document and the GCC more particularly clause 55.2 of the GCC as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the claim made by the petitioner. It was also directed that upon such examination and verification, the amount due that has been worked out should be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of completion of the said verification. 9. It is the submission of the petitioner that following the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) 2/2024, the following amounts were credited into the bank account at SBI Mission Veng branch which is operated by the petitioner. Sl.No Value Date Branch Code Amount credited (in Rs.) 1. 02.12.2024 1539 43,70,648.00 2. 02.12.2024 1539 77,08,186.00 3. 02.12.2024 1539 44,62,734.00 4. 02.12.2024 1539 2,98,01,736.00 5. 02.12.2024 1539 9.09,736.00 6. 02.12.2024 1539 41,48,018.00 7. 02.12.2024 1539 11,86,102.00 8. 02.12.2024 1539 1,14,58,520.00 9. 02.12.2024 1539 24,69,879.00 10. 02.12.2024 1539 23,15,854.00 11. 02.12.2024 1539 32,37,436.00 12. 02.12.2024 1539 20,10,167,00 TOTAL 7,40,79,214.00 10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount claimed by him in his letter dated 24.07.2024 without interest was Rs.14,19,54,114/- (Rupees Fourteen crore nineteen lakhs fifty four thousand one hundred fourteen) and the total amount claimed by him with interest at 12.5% per annum for 2 years with effect from the death of his father was Rs.17,74,42,643/- (Rupees Seventeen Crore seventy four lakhs forty two thousand six hundred forty three). Therefore, the petitioner submits that the amount which was credited into his account on 02.12.2024 was only 41.71% of the amount due to him and no information was given to him as to how much was released in connection to each of the 11 works specified by the petitioner in his claim. Therefore, the petitioner submits that the amount which was credited into his account on 02.12.2024 was only 41.71% of the amount due to him and no information was given to him as to how much was released in connection to each of the 11 works specified by the petitioner in his claim. It is the claim of the petitioner that there is a balance amount of Rs.10,33,63,429/- (Rupees Ten crore thirty three lakhs sixty three thousand four hundred twenty nine) including the interest at 12.5% per annum for 2 years which is yet to be released to the petitioner at this stage and none of the contracts in respect of the 11 works has been closed as required under clause 55.2 of the GCC. The petitioner also states that out of the 11 contract works issued to the father of the petitioner, three works were incomplete as on 03.07.2022 i.e the date of demise of his father, and out of the three incomplete works two works have already been re-tendered and allotted to two other Contractors. In respect of the work at Sl.No.6 i.e ‘construction and maintainance of Phura to Vahai road’ (chainage 0.00-17.00 Kmp) a NIT dated 25.11.2024 has been issued. 11. The petitioner further submits that though the respondents have taken the ground that excess payment has been made to the Contractor for ‘construction and maintenance of Phura-Vahai road’, the online portal OMMAS which is operated by the National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency, shows that no such excess payment was made to the Contractor and shows that the percentage of physical progress is commensurate with the percentage of financial progress inasmuch as all the RA bills were issued and payments made on the basis of measurement strictly conducted by the Engineers of the respondents duly entered in the measurement book. 12. Learned senior counsel therefore submits that the manner in which the respondents have dealt with the petitioner in connection with the 11 contract works is irrational, arbitrary and not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the standard bidding documents and the GCC which was signed with the Contractor. It is stated that the respondents have failed to discharge their responsibilities of closing the contract and making payment of all the dues to the petitioner on the demise of the Contractor. 13. It is stated that the respondents have failed to discharge their responsibilities of closing the contract and making payment of all the dues to the petitioner on the demise of the Contractor. 13. The learned senior counsel therefore prays that the respondents should be directed to act in accordance with the provision of clause 55.2 of GCC and release all the amounts due to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum w.e.f the death of the Contractor, i.e.03.07.2022 till 2.12.2024 as claimed by the petitioner in his representation dated 24.7.2024 after adjusting the amount already released to him on 2.12.2024. 14. Learned senior counsel has relied upon the following cases in support of his contention/submission:- 1. Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings Private Limited vrs Official Liquidator of Mahendra Petrochemicals Limited (in Liquidation) and Others reported in (2018) 10 SCC 707 . 2. Pune Municipal Corporation and Another vs Harakchand Misirimal Solanki reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 3. Kasinka Trading and Another vs Union of India and Another reported in (1995) 1 SCC 274 4. D.C.M Ltd and Another vs Union of India and Another reported in (1996) 5 SCC 468 Relying on the aforementioned judgments learned senior counsel submits that the doctrine of promissory estoppel or equitable estoppel is well established in the administrative law of the country. Any promise, assurance or representation should be binding on the party making it and that party should not be permitted to go back upon it. Learned counsel therefore submits that the respondents cannot be permitted to act in a manner against the provisions of the GCC which has been executed between the Contractor and the State respondents. 15. Learned Government Advocate Ms. Mary Khiangte appearing for the State respondents on the other hand submits that the tabular statements prepared and annexed by the petitioner is not correct. It is also stated that payments were already released to the petitioner on 29.11.2024 as reflected in the payment vouchers dated 29.11.2024 annexed in the affidavit-in-opposition of the State respondents. These payments were released in compliance of the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 2/2024. Moreover, learned Government Advocate has submitted that the alleged balance amount claimed by the petitioner was duly adjusted and recovered on account of excess payment made earlier in respect of the work, “construction of Phura to Vahai road, 0.00-17.00 Km, package MZ-07/912’. These payments were released in compliance of the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 2/2024. Moreover, learned Government Advocate has submitted that the alleged balance amount claimed by the petitioner was duly adjusted and recovered on account of excess payment made earlier in respect of the work, “construction of Phura to Vahai road, 0.00-17.00 Km, package MZ-07/912’. Learned Government Advocate relying on the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondent 1 to 4 categorically states that there is no outstanding amount due to the petitioner except for a minor balance of Rs.4,52,087/- (Rupees Four lakhs fifty two thousand eighty seven) which is due to some discrepancies in OMMAS. Learned Government Advocate relying on the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondent 1 to 4 categorically states that there is no outstanding amount due to the petitioner except for a minor balance of Rs.4,52,087/- (Rupees Four lakhs fifty two thousand eighty seven) which is due to some discrepancies in OMMAS. The State respondents in the affidavit-in-opposition have shown the corrected details of payment and recovery as on date as follows :- Table.2 DETAILS OF PAYMENT AND RECOVERY Name of work Agreement No Security Deposit 5% +Performance security Deposit of 5% Performance Security Deposit Unabalanc ed Bid security Deposit RA Bill /BA pending Amount Total Amount Due Before interest (h=d+e+f+ g) b c d e f g h Construction of Jognasuri to Karlui 57/MiRRDA/2018-19 5704879 +6,98,000 23,00,000 16,00,000 86,39,000 1,82,43,879 Road(0.00- 12.10)Package No.MZ04 1024 Payment to Contractor 41,48,018 77,08,186 SD=698,000 L.cess+896,390 Not refundable GST=1,46,434 Not refundable Balance 22,54,861 23,00,000 16,00,000 NIL Excess Recovery credited to MIRRDA 22,54,861 23,00,000 16,00,000 NIL FINAL BALANCE Construction of Sabualtlang to Hmawngbuchhuah Road(0.00-176 kmp) Package No.MZ04 1018 56/MiRRDA/2018- 19 18,30,867 6,20,000 20,30,000 44,80,867 Payment to Contractor 11,86,102 NIL NIL Balance 20,30,000 6,44,765 6,20,000 Excess Recovery credited to MiRRDA 20,30,000 6,44,765 6,20,000 NIL NIL NIL Construction of Nghalimliu to Balisora Road(3.00-5.00 Kmp) Package No.MZ 04 918 104/MiRRDA/201 7-18 18,30,867 6,25,000 49,48,026 74,29,686 Payment ot Contractor 9,09,934 NIL NIL Balance 9,46,726 6,25,000 49,48,026 4,94,639 6,25,000 49,48,026 FINAL BALANCE 4,52,087 NIL NIL Construction of Chhuarlung to Ainak Road(0.00- 10.00 Kmp) Package No.MZ 07 911 142/MiRRDA/201 7-18 67,46,529 20,89,685 88,36,214 Payment to Contractor 43,70,648 NIL Balance 23,75,881 20,89,685 Excess recovery credited to MiRRDA 23,75,881 20,89,685 NIL NIL Construction of Bunghmun to W.Mualthuam Road(0.00-13.50 Kmp) Package No.MZ 06 912 141/MiRRDA/201 7-18 68,88,675 21,62,029 90,50,704 Payment to contractor 44,62,734 Balance 24,25,941 21,62,029 Excess Recovery credited to MiRRDA 24,25,941 21,62,029 FINAL BALANCE NIL NIL NIL Construction of Phura to vahai Road(0.00-17.0 Kmp) Package No.MZ 07 912 95/MiRRDA/2017- 18 1,06,82,233 36,70,790 1,43,53,023 Group No.133 Payment to Contractor NIL NIL Balance 1,06,82,233 36,70,790 FINAL BALANCE NIL NIL NIL Construction of Vaseitlang to Manaibasora Road(0.00-13.50 Kmp) Package No.MZ 07 912 Group No.134 3/MiRRDA/2019- 20 1,76,97,363 57,92,500 2,98,01,735 5,32,81,598 Payment to contractor 1,14,58,520 NIL 2,98,01,735 Balance 62,28,843 57,92,500 NIL Excess Recovery credited to MiRRDA 62,28,843 57,92,500 NIL FINAL BALANCE NIL NIL NIL Construction of Niawhtlang to Chakhang Road(0.00-44.05 Kmp) Package No.MZ 07 71 2/MiRRDA/2020- 21 31,02,893 40,38,500 71,41,393 Payment to Contractor 20,10,167 NIL Balance 10,92,726 40,38,500 Excess Recovery credited to MiRRDA 10,92,726 40,38,500 NIL FINAL BALANCE NIL NIL NIL Construction of Nalkwan to Rulkual Road Package No.MZ 04 P2 01 B 6/MiRRDA/PMGSY /2019-20 35,74,751 33,00,000 68,74,751 Payment to Contractor 23,15,854 NIL NIL NIL Balance 12,58,897 33,00,000 Excess Recovery credited to MiRRDA 12,58,897 33,00,000 FINAL BALANCE NIL NIL NIL NIL Construction of Chawngte to Hmunlai Road Road Package No.MZ 04/74 7/MiRRDA/PMGSY /2013-14 38,12,504 18,72,191 56,84,695 Payment to Contractor 24,69,879 NIL Balance 13,42,625 18,72,191 Excess Recovery credited to MiRRDA 13,42,625 18,72,191 FINAL BALANCE NIL NIL Construction of Thingfal to Mamte Road Package No.MZ 05/714 4/MiRRDA/PMGSY /2013-14 49,97,304 15,80,000 65,77,304 Payment to Contractor 32,37,436 NIL Balance 17,59,868 15,80,000 Excess Recovery credited to MiRRDA 17,59,868 15,80,000 FINAL BALANCE NIL NIL TOTAL BALANCE PAYMENT TO BE MADE 4,52,087 NIL NIL NIL NIL TOTAL PAYMENT RELEASE TO CONTRACTOR FROM PENDING BILL AND SECURITY DEPOSIT =?7,40,79,214.00 RECOVERY FOR EXCESS PAYMENT: RECOVERY FROM CONTRACTOR SECURITY DEPOSIT = ?3,05,61,279.00 RECOVERY FROM PERFORMANCE SECURITY DEPOSIT AND UNBALANCED BID = ?3,66,28,721.00 TOTAL = ?6,71,90,000.00 16. Learned Government Advocate further submits that the respondents have received the information about the demise of the petitioner’s father, however, the closure of the contract could not be effected immediately due to the necessity of recovering excess payments made in respect of the works “construction of Phura to Vahai road”. Additionally, foreclosure was delayed due to a pending enquiry made by the Anti Corruption Bureau against the government officials. Subsequently, the closure of contract was approved vide office order No.B.15028/150/2014/PMGSY/EC/PWD/59 dated 25.08.2023. Thereafter, the respondents have released the payable amount to the petitioner. However, the present dispute in the writ petition has arisen due to the excess amount claimed by the petitioner and the corresponding excess payment inadvertently released to him in respect of the project work “construction and maintenance of Phura-Vahai road”. In respect of the said work, on the request of the deceased contractor one Shri Malsawmtluanga Ralte was approved as the nominee of the late Contractor by a letter dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure-4 to the Affidavit). Although the work has progressed to certain extent under the said Contractor/nominee, the pace of execution slowed down. As a result, the work remains incomplete with only 50.21% physical progress as on date. 17. It is the contention of the State respondents that a spot verification was carried out during 16 th to 19 th November 2022. As per the spot verification report dated 28.12.2022, it was found that an excess payment of Rs.766.44 lakhs had been made to the Contractor. This discrepancy arose as the actual length of pavement executed at the site was only 3.085 Kms, whereas payments had already been made for 15.000 Km. The report states that “the difference of value of work done is primarily due to shorter in length of pavement when re- measured by wheel-meter which shows 3085m instead of 3770m as reported earlier.” In the report 28.12.2022, it is also shown that the following persons were present during the spot verification:- (i) SDO, Tuipang, (ii) JE and (iii) K.Lalramnghaka, Manager of the Contractor. At this point of time the Contractor was the nominee of the deceased Contractor, namely Shri Malsawmtuanga who had already been designated as the nominee by letter dated 25.10.2019. 18. Learned Government Advocate therefore submits that the excess payment as per spot verification in November 2022 was Rs.762.44 lakhs. At this point of time the Contractor was the nominee of the deceased Contractor, namely Shri Malsawmtuanga who had already been designated as the nominee by letter dated 25.10.2019. 18. Learned Government Advocate therefore submits that the excess payment as per spot verification in November 2022 was Rs.762.44 lakhs. The recovery made after assessment of balance work held in March 2024 by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Siaha Division was Rs.90.54 lakhs and the excess payment to be recovered from the Contractor was Rs.671.90 lakhs (762.44-90.54). Hence, in view of clause 53.1(i) of the GCC wherein it is provided that, if any amount is still left unrecovered, it will be a debt payable to the employer from State PMGSY works, any other State Government works including State Public sector works executed by the Contractor, the excess payment has to be recovered. 19. The State respondents also submits that they have duly assessed and worked out the amount for release if any, to the Contractor/petitioner in respect of security deposits, unbalanced bid security, and the Retained Security deductions from each Running Account bill. However, in connection with the Phura-Vahai road project, a substantial excess payment amounting to Rs.671.90 lakhs remains to be recovered from the Contractor. Therefore, unless the said excess amount is fully recovered, no further release of funds or security deposits can be made to the petitioner. Only after successful recovery of the outstanding dues, any residual amount, if found admissible will be considered for release to the petitioner in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract. 20. Learned Government Advocate further submits that although the respondents acknowledge Shri Malsawntluanga as the duly appointed nominee of the deceased contractor against the “Phura-Vahai” project; for all purposes relating to all payments or imposition of penalties or any recoveries necessitated under the contract shall be enforced against the account of “Biakliana & sons” and no payments are admissible in favour of the nominee Shri Malsawntluanga under the terms of the agreement. 21. It is the submission of the learned Government Advocate therefore that no damages or compensation has been recovered from the petitioner as provided in Clause 55.2 of GCC, but rather the deductions have been made in view of the excess payment made to the petitioner/contractor as permitted by the GCC. 21. It is the submission of the learned Government Advocate therefore that no damages or compensation has been recovered from the petitioner as provided in Clause 55.2 of GCC, but rather the deductions have been made in view of the excess payment made to the petitioner/contractor as permitted by the GCC. Learned Government Advocate also submits that all the payments due to the petitioner/contractor have already been paid to him in accordance with the terms and conditions of the GCC. 22. Ld Govt Advocate relies on the case of A.P Electrical Equipment Corporation vs Tahsildar and Others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 447 , wherein the Supreme Court observed that normally the disputed question of fact are not investigated or adjudicated by a writ Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the same, there are disputed question of fact in the instant case and on this ground alone the present case should be dismissed. 23. This Court has duly considered the submissions of the opposing counsels and perused the pleadings as well as the documents relied upon by the parties. 24. While examining writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Escorts Limited and Others reported in (1986) 1 SCC 264 , the Supreme Court held that if the action of the State is related to contractual application or obligations arising out of a tort the Court may not ordinarily examine it unless the action has some public law character attached to it. Broadly speaking, the Court will examine actions of the State if they pertain to the public law domain and refrain from examining them if they pertain to the private law field. 25 . In Union of India & others Vrs Puna Hinda , reported in (2021) 10 SCC 690 , the Supreme Court was examining a matter where the appellant Union of India contended that there were serious disputes about the facts in respect of the authenticity of a Joint Final Report and the work done. Therefore it was contended that such disputed questions of fact could not have been adjudicated by the writ court as disputed question of facts relating to recovery of money could not have been entertained by the High Court under writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that: “24. Therefore it was contended that such disputed questions of fact could not have been adjudicated by the writ court as disputed question of facts relating to recovery of money could not have been entertained by the High Court under writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that: “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 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 that the amount stands crystallized***********and not by the writ court as it does not have the expertise in respect of measurements or construction of roads.” 26. The view taken in Puna Hinda, (supra) was again reiterated in Municipal Committee Katra Vrs Ashwani Kumar , reported in 2024 INSC 398 , wherein it was held that disputes arising out of purely contractual obligations cannot be entertained by the High Court in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 27. In appropriate cases, the writ Court certainly has the jurisdiction to entertain a dispute even if the same arises out of a contractual obligation or involves some disputed questions of fact. There is no doubt that when the State or an instrumentality of the State is a party to a contract, it has an obligation in law to act fairly, justly and reasonably which is the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. But when a writ petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature which may require oral evidence to be taken, the dispute cannot be decided in a writ petition. 28. In the instant case, this Court has observed that there are complex disputed questions of fact involved. The amount which the petitioner has claimed in the present writ petition as due to him has been disputed by the State respondents. The State respondents have relied extensively on the spot verification report carried out during 16 th to 19 th November 2022 on the Phura- Vahai road project, wherein, the representative of the Contractor was also present. The amount which the petitioner has claimed in the present writ petition as due to him has been disputed by the State respondents. The State respondents have relied extensively on the spot verification report carried out during 16 th to 19 th November 2022 on the Phura- Vahai road project, wherein, the representative of the Contractor was also present. In view of the Spot Verification report which states that an excess payment of 762.44 lakhs had been made to the Contractor, the State respondents have to make deductions according to the affidavit of the respondents. This spot verification report is also disputed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner or his representative was not present at the site but the Spot verification report has not been assailed by the petitioner. 29. Moreover, as observed in Puna Hinda, (supra), 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 State respondents that the amount claimed by the petitioner is due to him. This court also does not have the expertise in respect of measurements in construction of roads. 30. In view of the above observations and the judgments cited above, this court is of the view that the dispute in the present case arises out of a purely private contractual obligation between the petitioner and the State respondents without any public law element involved. Moreover, the facts involved in the case are disputed facts regarding the amount due to the petitioner, requiring evidence to be led and therefore, the appropriate remedy could only be a civil suit or arbitration. 31. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum if so advised. If the petitioner approaches the appropriate Civil Court, the period spent while pursuing the present writ petition and the previous writ petition i.e W.P(C) 2/2024 shall be condoned from the calculation of period of limitation. Petition stands disposed. No orders as to costs.