Order In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for payment of its admitted dues. 2. It is submitted by Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that petitioner was awarded work pursuant to a tender in two parts. The first part was related to drawing and designing and the second part was with regard to construction of Sewerage and Drainage System in Ranchi. The first part was completed and the Ranchi Municipal Corporation ('RMC' for short) gave a satisfactory work completion certificate and returned the performance bank guarantee to the petitioner, and thereafter RMC has been writing to the State Government for payment of the bills, but the same are withheld from 17.1.2008 and 31.5.2008 when the final bills were raised. He further submitted that after about two years of completion of work by the petitioner, a P.I.L. being W.P.(P.I.L.) No. 735 of 2010 was filed by some unknown person, set up by the unsuccessful bidders/and the persons who wanted to harass the petitioner, and on the basis of an innocuous order passed on 13.9.2010, a vigilance inquiry got started only to harass the petitioner, and on the ground of pendency of such inquiry the payment has been withheld. He lastly submitted that the respondents be directed to pay the dues with compensatory interest. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate General appearing for respondent nO.1-State submitted that in view of the arbitration clause contained in Clause 15 of the agreement, this writ petition is not maintainable. He further submitted that petitioner should make a representation and the admitted dues, if any will be paid to him and for the balance claim, if any the petitioner can invoke Clause 15 of the agreement. He further submitted that in view of Section 5 of the Arbitration Act, this Court may not exercise writ jurisdiction. He further submitted that in view of Section 65 of the Indian, Contract Act petitioner can claim compensation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2-RMC submitted that the Corporation has been asking the State Government for payment of the admitted dues. but the Government has not sanctioned the amount. He further submitted that the petitioner can invoke Clause 15 of the agreement. 5. The records of this case were called for by this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2-RMC submitted that the Corporation has been asking the State Government for payment of the admitted dues. but the Government has not sanctioned the amount. He further submitted that the petitioner can invoke Clause 15 of the agreement. 5. The records of this case were called for by this Court. According to the RMC the admitted dues are payable to the petitioner The respondents-State could not show what type of dispute or controversy is involved in such payment. It was submitted by learned Advocate General that the work was given to the petitioner after relaxing some provisions, though in such circumstances fresh tender should have been invited. But, on going through the records, especially the notes of the Chief Minister dated 26.3.2011 at page 32,- of the file, it appears that the matter was considered including the following opinion of the then Advocate General. "I further find that three audit reports of Meinhardt for the last three years had been submitted by the said company and therefore, there was even no technical infirmity or flaw in considering the offer of the said company. As mentioned above, the cabinet has approved the allotment of, work to said Meinhardt twice ......... Thus, in my opinion, Meinhardt should be approached to expedite the work." . It has been inter alia noted that now steps are to be taken by the Urban Development Department, and not by the Vigilance Cell, as suggested by the Chief Secretary; and that the scheme approved by the Cabinet should be implemented; and that the work of Sewerage and Drainage System in Ranchi Town should be done in phased manner, without delay, as decided by the Department. 6. Thus, the State-respondents have not been able to show the nature of dispute or controversy for which the petitioner should be asked to file representation and/or invoke Clause 15. It •further appears that the RMC had given work completion certificate and had released the performance bank guarantee to the petitioner. In the circumstances, specially in view of the aforesaid decision of the Chief Minister, there is no reason why the respondents should withhold the admitted amount of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the claim is not time barred also. In the circumstances, specially in view of the aforesaid decision of the Chief Minister, there is no reason why the respondents should withhold the admitted amount of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the claim is not time barred also. Accordingly, the respondents are jointly directed to see that the admitted amount is paid to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today, failing which it will also carry simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum, after expiry of such period, till the date of payment, which shall be recoverable from the erring officers/persons. However, if the said amount is paid to the petitioner within the said time, petitioner will not be entitled to claim any further amount on account of interest/damages. It may be noted that on the apprehension of learned Advocate General, Mr. Mittal agreed that the parties will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts in Jharkhand as indicated in the agreement. Let the original records be returned to Mr. M.S. Akhtar, appearing for the State. With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.