JUDGMENT M. M. DAS, J. : The petitioner herein was the opp. party No. 4 in W.P. (C) No. 11886 of 2004 which was filed by the intervenor in this writ petition being Shri Pradip Kumar Patro. The afore¬said writ petition, being W.P. (C) No. 11886 of 2004 was disposed of by this Court by order dated 8.8.2005. The disputes relates to acceptance of quotation invited by the Executive Officer, Berham¬pur Municipality with regard to supply of Utensils and tent house materials to the Kalyan Mandap near the Guest House for use of the persons who take the said Mandap on rent. The intervenor who was the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 11886 of 2004 challenged the action of the Berhampur Municipality in accepting the offer made by the present writ petitioner for supply of Utensils and tent house materials pursuant to the aforesaid quotation call notice. This Court by order dated 8.8.2005 disposed of the aforesaid writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 11886 of 2004) with the following observa¬tions and directions: “Considering the submissions made, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to Berhampur Municipality-opp. party No.2 to issue a fresh notice by publishing the same in the news paper widely circulated in the area inviting offers. It would be open to the petitioner to make his offer and take part in the said process. In the event, the petitioner’s offer is accepted, his earnest money deposited earlier, if lying with the Municipality, will be adjusted towards his offer, but if the offer of some other party is accepted, the said earnest money deposited by the petitioner, if not already refunded, shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of acceptance of the offer of the highest bidder. Such notice shall be published within a period of three weeks from today giving reasonable time for the bidders to make their offers. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to produce a certified copy of this order before the Executive Officer, Berhampur Municipality-opp. party No.3 for compliance of the directions given above”. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the peti¬tioner who was a party in W.P. (C). It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to produce a certified copy of this order before the Executive Officer, Berhampur Municipality-opp. party No.3 for compliance of the directions given above”. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the peti¬tioner who was a party in W.P. (C). No. 11886 of 2004, seeking quashing of Annexures-8 and 9 which are quotation call notice dated 24.8.2005 issued by the Berhampur Municipality and a letter addressed to the intervenor by the Executive Officer permitting the intervenor to participate in the fresh tender and adjusting the amount already deposited by the intervenor towards license fees for the period from 1.10.2004 to 30.9.2005. The petitioner has further prayed in the present writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the opp. party No.1 to clarify /modify the quotation call notice under Annexure-8 and if necessary, to clarify the order passed by this Court on 8.8.2005 by which W.P. (C) No. 11886 of 2004 was disposed of. 3. Misc. Case No. 9996 of 2006 has been filed by the Berhampur Municipality for vacating the interim order dated 14.9.2005 passed in this case by which it was directed that steps pursuant to Annexures-8 and 9 be taken, but no final decision shall be made thereon and the petitioner may participate in the tender without prejudice to his right. 4. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that pursuant to the order dated 8.8.2005 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 11886 of 2004 the quotation call notice was published by the Berhampur Municipality under Annexure-8. Under Annexure-9 which has been called in question by the petitioner, the Executive Officer called upon the intervenor to deposit the arrear dues towards the licence fees and the room rent till the end of September, 2005 within seven days from the date of receipt of the said order of the Municipal¬ity. We find no infirmity in either Annexure-8 or Annexure-9 as the said Annexures have been issued in compliance with the direc¬tion of this Court given in the order dated 8.8.2005 passed in W.P. (C) No. 11886 of 2004. 5. We find no infirmity in either Annexure-8 or Annexure-9 as the said Annexures have been issued in compliance with the direc¬tion of this Court given in the order dated 8.8.2005 passed in W.P. (C) No. 11886 of 2004. 5. We are, therefore, of the view that this writ petition has been filed by the present petitioner to frustrate the action of the Municipality taken pursuant to the order of this Court dated 8.8.2005 passed in W.P.(C) No. 11886 of 2004. Further, as contended by Mr. Choudhury, on behalf of Berhampur Municipality opp. party No.1, the dispute is clearly with regard to a contrac¬tual right which cannot be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is the case of the Berhampur Municipality-opp. party No.1 that after issuance of the quotation call notice under Annexure-8, the intervenor-Pradip Kumar Patro offered the highest amount of Rs. 2,57,101/- as annual licence fee for the store room for a period from 2005 to 2008, but though the writ petitioner submitted his tender, he did not deposit the earnest money. 6. As we find that there is no illegality or irregularity on the part of the Berhampur Municipality-opp. party No.1 in issuing the quotation call notice under Annexure-8 and the let¬ter/ order under Annexure-9 with regard to adjustment of the amount deposited by the intervenor, we are not inclined to inter¬fere with the matter, and, accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any cost. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. B. P. DAS, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.