ORDER 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner had approached this Court for direction upon the respondents to make payment of the balance amount of Rs. 7,75,000/- in favour of the petitioner-organization, which according to it is outstanding though it has successfully completed the sanctioned project for residential centres (complexes) for Scheduled Caste Girls of Dumaria and Musabani block of East Singhbhum District. 3. According to the petitioner certain amount of Rs. 4,25,000/- was released but the balance amount has not been released. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the nature of the work as per the advertisement inviting such proposals from societies/organization indicated that the intending person would have to execute work for educational development of women and to establish educational complexes with the specification prescribed at para 2 of the said project. As per Para 2(ii) of the said advertisement in the educational complexes initially teaching would be conducted for classes up to 1 to 5 which could be extended till class 12th for which infrastructure and facilities would increased as per the requirement. It is the case of the petitioner that he executed the said work but the balance payment in lieu thereof are being denied . 4. Learned counsel for the respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the State relying upon Annexure-A i.e. communication issued by the Principal Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand dated 12.2.2008 submitted that the work allotted to the petitioner was for construction of 4 residential centers of women belonging to Scheduled Caste category in order to ensure their self employment under welfare schemes. However, that fund has not been used for the aforesaid purpose by the petitioner and the same have been diverted to conduct 2 residential school for scheduled caste girls from class 1 to 5 in the block of Dumaria and Mosabani, though there was specific stipulation in the communication dated 12.2.2008 at clause 7 as also in the approval letter at serial no. 9 (Annexure A and B) that allotment for the purposes intended would not be diverted. In such circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum through his communication dated 27.5.2011(Annexure-C) has informed the department of Welfare that since the funds have been diverted for certain other purpose, the second installment of the aforesaid sanctioned amount should not be released in favour of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum through his communication dated 27.5.2011(Annexure-C) has informed the department of Welfare that since the funds have been diverted for certain other purpose, the second installment of the aforesaid sanctioned amount should not be released in favour of the petitioner. This fact, however been controverted by the petitioner in its rejoinder. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record including the advertisement at Annexure-2 as also Annexure A to C of the counter affidavit. Prima-facie it appears that the allotment of funds in favour of the petitioner was for construction of 4 residential centers for women in respect of a project to provide self employment facilities to the unemployed members of the scheduled caste community through non governmental organizations and the amount approved was Rs. 8.82 lakhs. An amount of Rs. 4.25 lakhs was released in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the project. However it has been noticed and detected that the petitioner instead of constructing the 4 residential centers for women of scheduled caste under the allotted project has diverted fund in maintaining 2 residential school for scheduled caste girls for class 1 to 5 against the allotted fund of Rs. 4.25 lakhs. In such circumstances, the claim of the petitioner has been denied by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum through its letter dated 27.5.2011(Annexure-C). In this background, therefore it appears that the claim of the petitioner for having executed the allotted work is disputed on facts and there is allegation that the funds allotted have been diverted for different purpose. 6. In that view of the matter, in the writ jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to issue directions for payment of the balance amount claimed by the petitioner as against the execution of its project. If the petitioner has any other remedy available under law it has liberty to agitate his grievance where the disputed question of facts may be adjudicated. 7. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.