JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This writ petition has been,filed for seeking a direction to decide the representation filed by the Petitioner for making payment of certain amount which has illegally been deducted by the opposite party-authorities and to make the payment of the commission as per the agreement between the parties. 2. The Petitioner claims himself to be a self marketing professional and worked for Erstwhile IDCOL. Cement Ltd. as a Collecting Agent. The work was subsequently abandoned, for certain reasons. However, the Petitioner claims that certain dues are still to be recovered from the said opposite party for the services rendered by the Petitioner from 1999 to 2004. Hence this writ petition to direct the opposite party-authorities to decide the representation and make the payment. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the opposite party authority is a Government of Orissa Undertaking. Therefore, it is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The Petitioner had worked as an agent for the said opposite party-authority and had not been paid his dues for which large number of representations have been made. However, opposite parties have not decided any of them. Therefore, an innocuous prayer is made to Issue direction to decide the said representations. 4. The question does arise as to whether the Petitioner can make recovery for execution of non-statutory contract through writ jurisdiction? Needless to say it was a non-statutory contract and there is nothing on record to show that what were the duties assigned to the Petitioner and how the commission can be recovered through the Writ Court. In the garb of asking the authorities to decide the representation, the Writ Court cannot be converted into a Civil Court for the purpose of money recovery. More so, issue of limitation also arises in such cases. So far as the direction to decide the representations is concerned, the Court has first to examine regarding the entitlement if any, of the representationist. In case such a direction is issued and the representation is not disposed of, another round of litigation will come by filing contempt application and under the pressure of the said proceedings, the opposite party would make payment though it may not be warranted in law. 5. The Supreme Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. and Others Vs. In case such a direction is issued and the representation is not disposed of, another round of litigation will come by filing contempt application and under the pressure of the said proceedings, the opposite party would make payment though it may not be warranted in law. 5. The Supreme Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. and Others Vs. G. Srinivas Reddy and Others, ; expressed its anguish on issuance of direction to the authorities to decide the representations as under the garb of deciding the representations, time barred claims were entertained by the authorities. The Court observed as under: We may also note that sometimes the High Courts dispose of matter merely with a direction to the authority to 'consider' the matter without examining the issue raised even though the facts necessary to decide the correctness of the order are available. Neither pressure of work nor the complexity of the issue can be a reason for the court, to avoid deciding the issue which requires to be decided, and disposing of the matter with a direction to 'consider' the matter afresh. Be that as it may. There are also several instances where unscrupulous Petitioners with the connivance of 'pliable' authorities have misused the direction 'to consider' issued by court. We may illustrate by an example. A claim, which is stale, time-barred or untenable, is put forth in the form of a representation. On the ground that the authority has not disposed of the representation within a reasonable time, the person making the representation approaches the High Court with an innocuous prayer to direct the authority to 'consider' and dispose of the representation.. When the court disposes of the petition with a direction to 'consider' the authority grants the relief, taking shelter under the order of the court directing him to 'consider' the grant of relief. Instances are also not wanting where authorities, unfamiliar with the process and practice relating to writ proceedings and the nuances of judicial review, have interpreted or understood the order 'to consider' as directing grant of relief sought in the representation and consequently granting reliefs which otherwise could not have been granted. Instances are also not wanting where authorities, unfamiliar with the process and practice relating to writ proceedings and the nuances of judicial review, have interpreted or understood the order 'to consider' as directing grant of relief sought in the representation and consequently granting reliefs which otherwise could not have been granted. Thus, action of the authorities granting undeserving relief, in pursuance of orders to 'consider', may be on account of ignorance, or on account of bona fide belief that they should grant relief in view of court's direction to 'consider' the claim, or on account of collusion/ connivance between the person making the representation and the authority deciding it. Representations of daily wagers seeking regularization/ absorption into regular service is a species of cases, where there has been a large scale misuse of the orders to consider. A similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. All India I.T.D.C. Employees Union and Others, . 6. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that it is difficult to ascertain as to whether the claim is justified and whether it is time barred and whether there exists any arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties. Therefore, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction. 7. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it shall be open to the Petitioner to approach the appropriate forum if so advised, for recovery of money from the opposite parties. Final Result : Dismissed