ORDER The Registrar General of this Court being the Tender Bulletin Officer, issued a tender notification dated 19-2-2003 for supply of wooden furniture for use in Courts, which when responded to by the petitioner, being the successful bidder, having quoted the lowest tender, held negotiations on 11-3-2003 and the reduced quotation, Annexure-B was followed by an agreement dated 17-3-2003 Annexure-C. It is the assertion of the petitioner that the manufactured items after inspection when supplied, was found to the prescribed specification and respondent issued the certificate Annexure-P. On the allegation that the respondent failed to pay the contractual amount, this petition is presented for a mandamus directing the respondents to pay Rs. 2,83,504/- together with interest at 18% per annum from the date of delivery of the furniture. 2. The petition is opposed by filing statement of objections dated 3010-2006 of the respondents inter alia contending that the writ petition is not maintainable and that the petitioner having supplied sub-standard furniture, not in conformity with the specification and design approved by the respondent, a breach of the terms of the contract, were not replaced despite being informed of the sub-standard material, by letters dated 20-11-2003. By another, letter dated 4-11-2004 of the 1st respondent addressed to the petitioner to replace the defective furniture so as to comply with the terms of quality and quantity, was not responded to by the petitioner. The letter dated 6-11-2004 of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner was informed that the quality of the furniture was poor, not in conformity with the specification of the schedule to the contract and to replace the furniture too was not responded. So also was the fate of the letter dated 30-10-2004. In addition, it is contended that the persons who acknowledged receipt of the furniture on delivery at the office of the 3rd respondent on 26-8-2003, having no knowledge over whether the furniture supplied by the petitioner was in conformity with the specifications, terms and conditions of the contract, recorded the same in the stock register. According to the respondents, there was sufficient justification to refuse payment to the petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterates the averments set out in the writ petition. According to the respondents, there was sufficient justification to refuse payment to the petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterates the averments set out in the writ petition. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents, pointing to Annexure-B, the form for submission of quotation for supply of wooden furniture made of teak wood, to the subordinate judiciary, contends that as the petitioner did not make available a certificate that the furniture delivered were made of teak wood, and on being found to be of some other wood not to specification, was in breach of the contract, disentitling the petitioner to demand payment of monies under the contract. Learned Counsel hastens to add that in the absence of a constitutional or statutory right being involved, a writ proceeding would not lie to enforce contractual obligations even if it is sought to be enforced against the State by placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another v Dolly Das. 4. The petitioner entered into a contract with the respondent-Tendering Authority to supply teak wood furniture, as stipulated in Annexure-B. Admittedly, there is no material whatsoever to evidence the fact that the furniture supplied was certified to be of teak wood by an appropriate authority. Merely because the Tendering Authority issued a certificate stating that the furniture supplied was to the specification, by itself and nothing more, does not mean to be a certification of the nature of wood used. Even according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner did not furnish a certificate as to whether the furniture was made from teak wood. Yet another serious dispute is the fact that the quality of the furniture was rather poor. 5. It is apparent from the relative position taken by the parties that there is considerable dispute in regard to material facts and that the dispute is of such a nature which cannot be conveniently adjudicated in this writ petition. It is a dispute which, it seems to me, is more appropriate for adjudication before a Competent Civil Court and hence, I decline to interfere. It is a dispute which, it seems to me, is more appropriate for adjudication before a Competent Civil Court and hence, I decline to interfere. Yet another reason not to interfere is the absence of a constitutional or statutory right being involved and that Article 226 is not available to claim any money in respect of the breach of contract, as held by the Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation's case. In the result, the writ petition is accordingly, rejected.