Judgment ( 1. ) THE present petition is filed by the petitioner to set aside the order dated 03. 04. 06 (Annexure P/1), order dated 12. 04. 07 (Annexure P/2), order dated 28. 04. 07 (Annexure P/3) and order dated 28. 04. 07 (Annexure p/4 ). The petitioner has also prayed for a direction against the respondents not to deduct any amount from the bills of the petitioner. It is also prayed for to refund the amount which has been recovered by the respondents. ( 2. ) IT is to be seen that by virtue of orders, Annexure P/1, p/2, P/3 and P/4, certain amount was claimed and the amount as claimed has not been paid to the petitioner. ( 3. ) THE facts leading to the present case are that petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondents for a period of two years with effect from 28. 10. 06 vide order dated 24. 10. 06 and on the date of hearing, the validity of the contract has already expired. ( 4. ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he worked with utmost honesty and sincerity and has followed every terms and condition of the contract. The petitioner alleges that he wrote a letter to the respondent No. 3 on 01. 06. 07 wherein he sought some clarification with respect to the distance between rail head to F. C. I. as the petitioner was having some doubt about the conditions of the contract. The letter dated 01. 06. 07 is placed on record as Annexure P/6 to the petition. ( 5. ) THAT, the respondent No. 4 replied the quarry made by the petitioner by writing a letter which is Annexure P/7. The letter as such reads as under:-"to, the Area Manager, food Corporation of India, jabalpur. Reference: Your letter No. Sandc/13/handt/balaghat/06- 08 Dt. 1-6-07. Sir, after taking into consideration of all points envisaged in the above referred letter, the bills are again forwarded to your end for arranging payment. The distance from the Railhead to the godowns are mentioned in the work slips. This distance is available in your office too hence the same was not mentioned in the work slips in the past. A fresh report of the recently constituted committee for measuring the distance has already available with you which may please be referred. The distance from the Railhead to the godowns are mentioned in the work slips. This distance is available in your office too hence the same was not mentioned in the work slips in the past. A fresh report of the recently constituted committee for measuring the distance has already available with you which may please be referred. In case any excess billing has been done by Handt Contractor, recovery may be effected from him. In para 3 of your letter it is mentioned that more stock has been transported to Navegaon Unit which is further than Kosmi Unit. In this connection, you may kindly refer this office letter No. FCI/dtc/movt/07-08/vol II Dt. 28. 5. 07 addressed to the Manager (D) Railhead, Balaghat requesting him to transport 70% of the stock to Kosmi Unit and the balance 30% to navegaon Unit. Hence the reason for transporting more stock to Navegaon Unit may please obtained from the manager (D)/incharge Railhead. It has also noticed that a few trucks consigned for Kosmi Unit have been unloaded at Navegaon by the Handt Contractor by his own accord. The Railhead Incharge is asked to provide the details of trucks originally sent for Kosmi Unit have been unloaded at Navegaon by the Handt Contractor. The details will be forwarded shortly. " ( 6. ) IT is the claim of the petitioner that he has carried out the work of the contract but at the time when the petitioner submitted his bill then the amount as such as per the bill has not been paid to him for various reasons and wartage has also been charged from the petitioner. ( 7. ) IN view of the aforesaid, it is to be seen in the present case, there is a money claim with regard to non payment of bills for performance of work under the contract by the petitioner. In the present case, the dispute is that whenever the bills have been submitted by the petitioner, the said amount was not paid and the same was paid to the petitioner after deducting the amount from the bills of the petitioner. Such an action of the respondents has compelled the petitioner to file the present petition. ( 8. ) THE respondents while filing the return have also disputed the factual scenario of the case. Such an action of the respondents has compelled the petitioner to file the present petition. ( 8. ) THE respondents while filing the return have also disputed the factual scenario of the case. It is also contended in the return that after when the petitioners contract was accepted, the petitioner has not deposited the security amount which was the condition requisite in the NIT. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not made payment to his labourers and, therefore, the work has suffered. The necessary correspondence has also been placed on record which is Annexure R/2 and R/3 to the return. Since no payment was made by the petitioner to the labourers, therefore, the work was stopped by the labourers at FCI, Balaghat since 12. 06. 07. The respondents have also placed on record the letter written by the President of Kshram veer Hambai Majdoor Sangh to the Collector to show that it was the case of non payment of salary to labourers and due to the aforesaid reason, it is submitted by the respondents that the petitioner, because of his fault could not performed the contract. ( 9. ) WITH respect to the distance, it is stated by the respondents that according to the Committee Report, the minimum distance from rail head Balaghat to Kosmi is 1. 7 k. m. and rail head Balaghat to Nagegaon is 3. 2 k. m. and on the basis of such distance, the payment was made to the earlier contractor. It is also contended by the respondents that arbitrarily, the dispute was raised by the petitioner with respect to the distance. ( 10. ) ON the basis of the same, it is clear that there is a factual dispute with regard to conduct of the petitioner including the distance and for this reason, the amount as such as claimed by the petitioner has not been paid. ( 11. ) IT is also contended on behalf of the respondents that in a similar case, this Court has dismissed the Writ Petition No. 2751/2007 which was decided on 25. 3. 08 (M/s. Narmada enterprises Vs. Food Corporation of India and others ). ( 12. ( 11. ) IT is also contended on behalf of the respondents that in a similar case, this Court has dismissed the Writ Petition No. 2751/2007 which was decided on 25. 3. 08 (M/s. Narmada enterprises Vs. Food Corporation of India and others ). ( 12. ) IN view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that since in the present case, there are disputed questions of law and facts are involved and all the questions as such cannot be decided in the present writ petition and all these questions properly can be decided by the competent Court having jurisdiction to record the evidence and then to arrive at a finding. The judgment on which the respondents have placed reliance of M/s Narmada Enterprises (supra) has also been upheld by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 399/2008. ( 13. ) IN view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings as permissible under the common law.