JUDGMENT : DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, C.J.: Heard Sri E. Manohar, the learned senior Counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings for the respondents. The writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 18-4-2002 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants, on the ground that rights or obligations arising out of non-statutory contracts cannot be enforced through the medium of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. 2. Sri E. Manohar the learned senior Counsel submitted that the learned single Judge has not noticed that as per clause (2) of the agreement the remedy by way of suit would be available only after intimating the contractor with regard to the preparation of final bill and not before. Clause (2) of the agreement reads as under: A reference for adjudication under this clause shall be made by either party to the contract within six months from the date of intimating the contractor of the preparation of final bill or his having accepted payment. 3. In our opinion, the learned Judge is not correct in not considering that the inaction on the part of the respondents adversely affected the rights of the appellant. The appellants herein are not seeking enforcement of contractual obligations under writ jurisdiction. They are questioning the administrative inaction on the part of the respondents in not approving the final bills and thereby adversely affecting their fundamental and constitutional rights. It is also to be seen that the appellants are not seeking direction for payment of any amount. The appellants, in our view, do not have any remedy for questioning the administrative inaction on the part of the respondent except invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this context it is useful to see the prayer in the writ petition. The appellants, in our view, do not have any remedy for questioning the administrative inaction on the part of the respondent except invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this context it is useful to see the prayer in the writ petition. The prayer is to declare the inaction of the respondents in not preparing the final bill by approving the revised estimates in respect of the petitioners' works carried out pertaining to the construction of the collectorate complex at Nalgonda in pursuance of the letter No. TSB/T3/8812/93, dated 24-6-1995 of the 2nd respondent-Superintending Engineer (Roads and Buildings), Rural Circle, Hyderabad as being arbitrary, illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith prepare the final bill by approving the revised estimates and make payments to the petitioners-appellants and pass such other order as this Court may deem fit. Our attention was also drawn to the letter dated 7-3-2000 addressed by the Executive Engineer (R & B), Nalgonda to the 1st appellant herein which is reproduced hereunder: With reference to the subject cited above, you are requested to this office for making final payment to the abovesaid work vide references 1st and 2nd cited. For the above work revised estimate was submitted for approval. Soon after the approval of the revised estimate, the final bill will be paid. This is for favour of information and necessary action. 4. Letter No. DB/D5/2001/1815 sent by the Executive Engineer (Roads and Buildings), Nalgonda to the advocate of the appellant can also be usefully referred to in this context which reads as under: With reference to the letter cited; I have to inform that the revised estimate for the work executed by G. Rajender Reddy & Co., Hyderabad is submitted to the higher authorities for approval on receipt of approval of higher authorities, for payment will be made to the firm after due verification of the claim. 5. It is also relevant to notice relevant clauses in the agreement which are reproduced hereunder: (1)(i) Settlement of all claims upto 50,000/- in value and below by way of arbitration to be referred as follows: (a) Claims upto Rs. 10,000/- Superintending Engineer (R&B) Headquarters Circle, Hyderabad. (b) Claims upto Rs. 10,000/- and upto Rs. 50,000/- in value Engineer-in-Chief, Roads and Administration, Hyderabad. 10,000/- Superintending Engineer (R&B) Headquarters Circle, Hyderabad. (b) Claims upto Rs. 10,000/- and upto Rs. 50,000/- in value Engineer-in-Chief, Roads and Administration, Hyderabad. The arbitration proceedings will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 as amended from time to time. The Arbitrator shall invariably give reasons in the award. (ii) Settlement of all claims above Rs. 50,000/- in value. All claims above Rs. 50,000/- in value shall be decided by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction by way of a regular suit and not by arbitration. (2) A reference for adjudication under this clause shall be made by either party to the contract within six months from the date of intimating the contractor of the preparation of final bill or his having accepted payment. (3) The relevant clauses of Andhra Pradesh Detailed Standard Specification stand modified by the extent provided in this clause. 6. It is seen from the above terms and conditions that the suit can be filed only after intimation is received by the contractor from the Government. It is now represented that the matter has already been referred to the Government for approval of the revised estimate and that the said estimate was submitted long prior to 1999 during the execution of the work. Admittedly the revised estimate has not been finally approved by the Government. It is not in dispute that the contract was entrusted to the appellant on 24-6-1995 for construction of the building for the collectorate and that the building after its completion has also been inaugurated on 8-2-1999. Even after completion of the work the final bill has not been settled to the appellant. In our opinion the administrative inaction of the respondent-Government can only be questioned by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is maintainable in law. We, therefore, have no hesitation to issue a direction to the Government to consider and approve the revised estimate submitted to it and pass appropriate orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ appeal is ordered in the above terms.