JUDGMENT : As per Shantanu Kemkar, J. : - By filing this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to release the security amount deposited by it with the respondents. 2. According to the petitioner, in terms of the works contract entered into by it with the respondents for construction/up-gradation of rural roads under Pradhan Mantri Sadak Yojana for an amount of Rs. 505.01 lakhs under the Package No. 3008, the petitioner submitted with the respondents the performance security of 10% of the contract amount, bank guarantee of 5% amount and one fixed deposit receipt for an amount of 25.25 lakhs. As per the terms of the contract, the petitioner was required to maintain the roads for a period of five years. 50% of the security amount was to be released after completion of three years and rest 50% of the security amount was to be released after completion of five years. 3. The petitioner had completed the work on 25-6-2006 and performed regular maintenance during the prescribed period, and as such, satisfied with the same, 50% of the performance security was released by the second respondent on completion of three years successful maintenance. However, even after maintenance and expiry of the period of five years on 24-6-2011, remaining 50% security amount, which was deposited by the petitioner in the form of fixed deposit receipt for an amount of Rs. 25.25 lakhs, was not released by the respondents. In the circumstances, the petitioner vide letter dated 3-8-2011 asked the respondents to refund the said amount, but in spite of repeated requests, it was not returned. However, on 29-8-2011, the petitioner, was informed that under some other contract (PIU, Jhabua) an amount of dues of Rs. 61.44 lakhs against the petitioner, the amount payable under this contract cannot be released. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. 4. According to the petitioner, as per the terms and conditions of the contract, after successful completion of maintenance and the period of five years, the amount was required to be released to the petitioner and in the garb of dues under other contract, the respondents cannot withheld the amount undisputedly payable to the petitioner. 5. The respondents have filed reply. According to the petitioner, as per the terms and conditions of the contract, after successful completion of maintenance and the period of five years, the amount was required to be released to the petitioner and in the garb of dues under other contract, the respondents cannot withheld the amount undisputedly payable to the petitioner. 5. The respondents have filed reply. It has been stated that although there is no complaint or dispute about the petitioner's work under the contract in question and also no dispute about the petitioner's entitlement to get the amount under this contract, but the aforesaid 50% security deposit amount, cannot be refunded to the petitioner, as there are dues to be realised from the petitioner under another contract. Reliance has been placed on Clause 53 of the contract document. 6. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner stating that having regard to the fact that there is no dispute so far as the payment of the amount in regard to the contract in question is concerned, the respondents cannot withheld the amount against the alleged dues of some other contract. 7. Admittedly, the dispute of other contract is pending decision before the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal as Reference Case No. 27/2010. In the circumstances, in the garb of dues against the petitioner under another contract, the amount payable under contract in question cannot be withheld. In Full Bench judgment in the case of B.B. Verma and another Vs. State of M.P. and another, 2008(1) M.P.H.T. 17 (FB) = 2007 (4) MPLJ 610 , it has been held by this Court that claim against contractor for payment of sum or money under the contract cannot be recovered by the Government from the contractor until the dispute is adjudicated. 8. So far as the reliance of the respondents on Clause 53 of the agreement is concerned, the same is wholly misconceived. Clauses 53 and 53.1 relate to how the payment is to be made upon termination of contract. Clause 53 (1) does not authorise the respondents to recover the amount due in regard to other contracts of the same contractor. In the present case, the petitioner successfully completed the work and then the period of successful maintenance of the road for five years has also been elapsed. Clause 53 (1) does not authorise the respondents to recover the amount due in regard to other contracts of the same contractor. In the present case, the petitioner successfully completed the work and then the period of successful maintenance of the road for five years has also been elapsed. On going through the contract in question, we find that there is no clause in it empowering the respondents to recover the amount due under any other contract from the security of the contract in question. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the amount, which the petitioner is claiming under this agreement is undisputedly payable to the petitioner, in our view, the same cannot be allowed to withheld on account of the alleged dues against the petitioner for some other contract about which the dispute is pending consideration before the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal. 10. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the balance amount under the contract in question to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.