Devi Prasad Singh and Satish Chandra,JJ. - Sri K.K. Pal, learned counsel appeared for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Learned CSC accepted notices on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4. 2. With the consent of the parties' counsel, we proceed to decide the writ petition finally at admission stage. 3. Solitary argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the contract was fully finalized with regard to Tah-Bazari, but even recovery citation has been issued to recover the dues in question. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner since contract was not finalized, the petitioner was awarded the contract, respondent Zila Panchayat, Sultanpur have no right to recover any dues from the petitioner. For this purpose, he relied upon a Division Bench's judgment reported in (1996) 3 UPLBEC 1586 Mahesh Chandra vs. Zila Panchayat, Mainpuri. 5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, controversy involved is disputed question of facts and law. 6. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation before the respondent No. 2 Zila Panchayat, Sultanpur within a period of three weeks from today. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 shall decide the representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law on the basis of original record by passing a speaking and reasoned order providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner say within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the present order and communicate the decision to the petitioner. For a period of three months or till disposal of the representation, whichever is earlier, the status quo as exists today, shall be maintained by the parties. 7. Subject to above, the writ petition is finally disposed of.