JUDGMENT Correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge (IBEX Gallagher Private Limited, Bangalore v The Deputy Conservator of Forest, Hunsur, Mysore District and Anotherl) in quashing the letter dated 13-8-2007 issued by appellant 2 herein, is challenged in this appeal urging various grounds. 2. There is no need for us to advert to the facts and legal contentions urged, as the learned Single Judge has elaborately adverted to and answered the same in granting the relief by quashing the impugned letter. 3. The case of the appellants is that the work of fencing executed by the respondent was not satisfactory to the appellants herein and therefore invoking Clause 11 of the agreement, an order was passed by appellant 2 calling upon the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 37,87,000/on or before 30-6-2007. This was challenged by the respondent in W.P. No. 10097 of 2007, wherein the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the appellants to consider the order passed by the respondents as a show-cause notice and the petitioner may be permitted to reply to the same within three weeks. It is thereafter, the impugned letter was issued by appellant 2 which is quashed by the learned Single Judge. 4. With the above said legal contentions urged by the Government Advocate, we have carefully examined the findings and the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge. 5. The learned Single Judge after referring to Clauses 11, 12, 13, 18 and 22 of the agreement between the parties and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Iqbal Naseer Usmani v Central Bank of India and Others1, with reference to the provisions of Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, has held that the claim against the respondent in a huge sum of Rs. 37,87,000/- is untenable in law. 6. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in passing the order impugned in this writ appeal. We do not find any ground much less the substantial question of law that would arise in law for the purpose of our interference with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal must fail and accordingly the same is dismissed. We do not find any ground much less the substantial question of law that would arise in law for the purpose of our interference with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal must fail and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, it is open for the appellants to work out their rights in accordance with law, if they are so advised.