Judgment : 1. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to make the payment of Rs.3,92,779/- with interest at 18% per annum, from 9.6.1997, which is due by the 4th respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent is a Government Cooperative Spinning Mill, which manufactures yarn out of cotton. The petitioner is a small cotton merchant engaged in buying kapas from cotton growers, ginning them into cotton and selling the same. The cotton was supplied by the small cotton merchants to various agricultural co-operative marketing societies and they in turn sell the cotton to the co operative mills, like the 4th respondent. All these cotton mills have not paid the sale price for the cotton sold. As such, the marketing societies have not been able to make any payment to the small cotton merchants, who have sold the cotton to the societies. In order to deprive the small farmers and merchants of their legitimate dues, the 2nd respondent issued a notification in G.O.Ms.No.194, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles, and Khadi [C.1], dated 18.7.1998, notifying 18 co-operative spinning mills as relief undertakings by suspending the liabilities of such mills for one year. In spite of declaring those mills as 'sick', there was a communication from the mills, in August 1998, to the small merchants stating that they have to agree for payment of 60% of the amount due. Taking advantage of the miserable conditions of the merchants, they were forced to accept the payment of 60%. Even the said 60% was to be paid in three instalments. Most of them agreed to the said suggestion under duress, but even that 60% was not paid before the stipulated date. The petitioner supplied cotton during the period April 1996 – June 1996 to the 4th respondent and a total amount of Rs.38,78,038.91 was due to the petitioner by the 4th respondent, against which a sum of Rs.22,32,355.50 was paid by the 4th respondent. Therefore, a sum of Rs.16,45,683.41 was due as on 20.11.1996. The petitioner supplied cotton during the period April 1996 – June 1996 to the 4th respondent and a total amount of Rs.38,78,038.91 was due to the petitioner by the 4th respondent, against which a sum of Rs.22,32,355.50 was paid by the 4th respondent. Therefore, a sum of Rs.16,45,683.41 was due as on 20.11.1996. There was a clear agreement between the 4th respondent and the petitioner that towards the arrears of sale amount of cotton to the tune of Rs.16,45,683.41, yarn will be supplied by the 4th respondent to the 5th respondent and the sale proceeds of the yarn paid by the 5th respondent, in turn, will be paid to the petitioner in full settlement of all the outstanding dues. Accordingly, the 4th respondent supplied cotton to the 5th respondent to the tune of Rs.16,16,804/-, who, in turn, made the payment to the 4th respondent, out of which, the petitioner received only a sum of Rs.6,70,000/-. Thus, the balance of Rs.9,16,804/-was due to the petitioner. By letter dated 3.6.1998, the 4th respondent confirmed the balance due to the petitioner as Rs.9,81,947.50. Again by letter dated 25.8.1998, the 4th respondent called upon the petitioner to receive 60% of the payment by foregoing the remaining 40% of the dues. There was no alternative for the petitioner but to agree for that proposal in order to clear his debts at least as part payment. Accordingly, the 4th respondent made the payment of Rs.5,89,169/- on 23.8.1999 towards 60% of the amount due as full and final payment of the cotton dues payable to the petitioner. The present writ petition is filed for the payment of the rest of 40% amount, viz., Rs.3,92,779/-. 3. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit and disputed the claim of the petitioner. It is stated therein that more than 100 spinning mills had fallen sick and many of them had been completely closed due to various difficulties faced by them. The 4th respondent mill also had fallen sick and with a view to help the workmen to get continuous employment, the State Government issued a notification declaring the mills as relief undertakings when many of the cooperative spinning mills were unable to pay the dues to the suppliers. The State Government felt and taken a decision to make payment of 60% of the outstanding, provided the suppliers agree for waiving the remaining 40%. The State Government felt and taken a decision to make payment of 60% of the outstanding, provided the suppliers agree for waiving the remaining 40%. Accordingly, the 4th respondent addressed letters to the petitioner on 25.8.1998 and 31.8.1998 offering 60% of the total outstanding dues of Rs.9,81,947.50 in full and final settlement and asked whether he was agreeable for settlement. The petitioner, through letter dated 16.9.1998, informed the 4th respondent and expressed his willingness in unequivocal language that if the 4th respondent pays 60% of the outstanding balance by a demand draft in one instalment on or before 30.9.1998, he would accept it as full and final settlement and waive the remaining 40% of the dues. Accordingly, the 4th respondent sent a demand draft for Rs.5,89,169/-being 60% of the total outstanding dues as full and final settlement, which the petitioner had wholeheartedly accepted without any protest. Having accepted the 60% of the outstanding, as stated supra, the petitioner cannot now file the present writ petition seeking the balance amount of 40%. 4. Apart from contending so, the 4th respondent also stated that if at all the petitioner has got any cause of action, he should approach the Civil Court by filing a Civil Suit and not by way of the present writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records. 6. The short point for consideration, in this writ petition, is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to maintain this writ petition seeking payment of a sum of Rs.3,92,779/-being 40% of the balance outstanding said to be due from the 4th respondent. First of all, it is a money claim and when such claim is not accepted by the respondents herein, the question of considering the same under writ jurisdiction does not arise. At any event, in this case, admittedly, the petitioner had issued a letter on 16.9.1998 to the 4th respondent agreeing to waive 40%, provided the balance 60% of Rs.5,89,169/-is paid in one instalment, on or before 30.9.1998, by way of demand draft. It is admitted that the said sum, as agreed upon by the petitioner, was also paid by the petitioner by way of demand draft, dated 23.9.1998 by the 4th respondent as could be seen through their communication dated 23.9.1998 addressed to the petitioner. The petitioner also admits the receipt of such sum. It is admitted that the said sum, as agreed upon by the petitioner, was also paid by the petitioner by way of demand draft, dated 23.9.1998 by the 4th respondent as could be seen through their communication dated 23.9.1998 addressed to the petitioner. The petitioner also admits the receipt of such sum. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the petitioner was paid the agreed amount on 23.9.1998 itself. Even after giving such an undertaking or acceptance before the 4th respondent, if the petitioner still claims for the balance amount, based on any change of circumstances, it is for him to establish his right only before the competent Civil Court by adducing material evidence and not by way of filing this writ petition. Disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in a writ petition that too when such facts are related to a money claim. Therefore, without expressing any view on the merits and contentions on the petitioner's claim, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable only on the ground that such relief cannot be granted by this Court, as the petitioner has to approach only the competent Civil Court seeking such relief, if at all the petitioner has got any cause of action to maintain such suit. Therefore, by giving such liberty to the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed, as not maintainable. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.