ORDER : This appeal is directed against an ORDER :dated 18.11.98 passed by the learned Writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3366 of 1998 (Ravi Shankar vs. State of Bihar and others), whereby the learned Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition holding that contractual obligation can not be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is stated that the petitioner-appellant is the sole proprietor of Shilpee Electro Complex and submitted the tender for supply of certain materials to the Executive Engineer, Tube- well Maintenance Division, Siwan for its Meerganj Subdivision. 3. The tender was accepted by the department and the appellant supplied materials worth Rs. 1,11,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eleven thousand) only. The appellant received only Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) out of Rs. 1,11,000/(Rupees One Lakh eleven thousand) and he was assured of payment of the balance amount shortly. But despite that the remaining balance amount of Rs. 61,000/- (Rupees sixty-one thousand) has not been paid. It is also contended that the appellant is also entitled to receive payment of Rs. 22,863/- (Rupees Twenty two thousand eight hundred sixty three) for certain other items, which relates to repair works done by the appellant. The same having not been paid, therefore, the appellant-petitioner filed the writ petition. 4. The learned Writ Court vide its ORDER :impugned dismissed the writ petition, against which this appeal has been filed. 5. The matter in issue is well settled that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not available to enforce a contract which is not supported by any statutory force and, therefore, appertains to the realm of private law. Thus the writ petition has rightly been dismissed. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Nath & Company vs. State of Bihar and others : 1998(2) PLJR, 363 has also held that Article 14 of the Constitution does not permit judicial review of State action after a contract has been entered into and the Court should deprecate the practice of entertaining writ petitions relating to money and other such claims in respect of which statutory remedy is available and that effective remedy includes arbitration and that if a contract agreement contains arbitration clause interference by Writ Court would amount to granting money decree in respect of a contract which is not a statutory contract but appertains to realm of private law. 7. 7. Despite the above decision and dismissal of the writ petition, a strong reliance has been made by the learned counsel on a decision in the case of Pyrites Phosphates and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others : AIR 1998, Patna, 57 : 1997 (2) PLJR 1 . This decision has been considered in M/s. Nath & Company (supra) and the same has been distinguished holding that the ratio laid down in that case has no application. 8. This being' so, this appeal has no force. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.