JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This is an application invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Petitioner, a Company registered under the Companies Act manufactures explosives. For that purpose, it gets supply of ammonium nitrate melt, 80% concentrate from the Fertilizer plant of opposite party No. 6 which is incharge of its employees opposite party Nos. 7 and 8. Opposite party No. 6 is a Government Company fully controlled by the Central Government. 3. For the tax paid under the Central Excises and Salt Act in respect of ammonium nitrate supplied to petitioner, opposite party No. 6 added the same to the price and demanded payment. Apprehending stoppage of supply which would affect manufacture of explosives, petitioner paid a part of the demanded amount and filed this writ application for a declaration that ammonium nitrate melt, 80% concentrate which is purchased by petitioner from opposite party No. 6 is not entitled to demand the same. 4. Opposite party No. 6 challenged its liability and lost in the challenge in the statutory forums and the orders confirming its liability has become final. However, petitioner had no scope for being heard before the statutory forums. Now the dispute relates to money claims by and against opposite party No. 6 from the petitioner u/s 64-A of the Sale of Goods Act. 5. When petitioner filed the writ application an interim order of stay was granted. Normally, money claims are to be made in Civil Courts which can consider the validity of such claim on the facts and as per the law applicable. Writ jurisdiction is not to be exercised in such cases. On account of apprehension of the petitioner that supply of ammonium nitrate may be discontinued if no payment is made, this writ application was entertained and interim stay was granted. Neither opposite party No. 6 nor petitioner would be prejudiced in case such money claims are left open to be decided by Civil Court in accordance with law. Although, Mr. On account of apprehension of the petitioner that supply of ammonium nitrate may be discontinued if no payment is made, this writ application was entertained and interim stay was granted. Neither opposite party No. 6 nor petitioner would be prejudiced in case such money claims are left open to be decided by Civil Court in accordance with law. Although, Mr. A.B. Misra, learned Senior Standing Counsel of Central Government submitted that ammonium nitrate melt, 80% concentrate is not exempt and is liable to tax and the same has been adjudicated upon to reach finality, we are not inclined to consider the question on merits since the matter can be considered by the Civil Court while considering liabilities of opposite party No. 6 for refund to petitioner and its right to demand unpaid amount on account of tax u/s 64-A of the Sale of Goods Act. Question is, accordingly, left open. 6. Apprehension of petitioner that supply may be discontinued if the demand by opposite party No. 6 which is subject matter of the writ application can be best mitigated if we direct opposite party No. 6 and its officers (opposite party Nos. 7 and 8) not to discontinue supply [of] ammonium nitrate melt, 80% concentrate to petitioner only because it has not paid the amount demanded by opposite party No. 6 until final decision in a suit. Present liability of the petitioner, if any, shall not be governed by this order. 7. In the result, writ application is allowed to this limited extent. No costs. Requisites for issue of writ to opposite party Nos. 6 to 8 only shall be filed by the petitioner on or before 7-2-1990. Final Result : Allowed