Manmohan Sarin ( 1 ) RULE Since a short question is involved , with the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for quashing and setting aside the impugned letter bearing No. 54 (1192)/public Witness D-1/a-V-/1959 dated 4. 5. 1998, forfeiting the security/earnest money. Further restraint is sought on the respondents from withholding, payment of bills by the petitioners in respect of other works to recover the amount. ( 2 ) THE work, namely, "strengthening of road No. 26 from junction of road No. 41 to GTK Road" was awarded to the petitioner vide letter of 21. 1. 1998. The date of start and completion of work were 30. 1. 1998 and 30. 7. 1998 respectively. The value of work was Rs. l, 83, 53, 477. 00frs. with security/earnest money of Rs. l. 00 lakh. ( 3 ) 1 have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has urged that in the instant case there was no breach or default on the part of the petitioner. Rather the delay in commencement of the work was due to a supervening event, namely, the sealing by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee of the Hotmix Plant of the petitioner, because of which work could not commence. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further urged that in the instant case respondent has terminated the award of contract without any show cause notice and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to explain. Had the petitioner been given proper opportunity, it could have explained the circumstances to the respondents, and the present situation could have been averted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the work has been cancelled before the expire of the contractual period. ( 5 ) ANOTHER plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the instant case there was no written contract on the basis of which the respondent could demand or forfeit earnests money/security. Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the writ is the proper remedy as there would be no concluded arbitration agreement. ( 5 ) ANOTHER plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the instant case there was no written contract on the basis of which the respondent could demand or forfeit earnests money/security. Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the writ is the proper remedy as there would be no concluded arbitration agreement. ( 6 ) I have also-heard the learned counsel for the respondent, who has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner in substance is seeking reliefs based on contractual rights, which cannot be permitted in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. ,there is merit in this contention. The prayers in the writ petition are for setting aside the letter of termination as also for restraint on withholding other payments for recovery of earnest money. These are matter essentially in the domain of enforcement of contractual rights. As regards, the petitioner s contention that there was no written contract entered into, I find that the petitioner s own letter dated 25. 2. 1998 states as under : We as a party to the Agreement No. 31/ee/p. W. D.-I/97-98 do very well understand the essenceness of time to a Contract. Regarding your etherence to Contract strictly or otherwise we have not to comment on this, neither we asked for weightage to lapses nor we have lapsed in discharging our contractual obligations and we also do not appreciate the language, threats etc. conveyed hiddenly by you through the letter in question and we further vise you to please refrain from such tactics in future and create a healthy and pleasant atmosphere to enable us. to execute and complete the work in professional and graceful manner. " ( 6 ) UNFORTUNATELY the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner is contrary TO the record and not borne out form his own communications. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. It would be open to the petitioner to seek remedies as admissible at law in the civil forum.