JUDGMENT Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. The petitioner seeks a mandamus for the payment of the amount under the contract for carrying out the work of the Public Works Department. 2. In our view, granting the relief which is sought in these proceedings, would virtually amount to a money decree. The petitioner would have to pursue the ordinary civil remedy for the recovery of its dues or, if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, to invoke the terms of the agreement. 3. In a similar case, M/s R.S. Associate Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.1, a Division Bench of this Court had declined to entertain a prayer for similar reliefs with the following observations: "These are purely contractual matters and we are not inclined to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in this regard. Whether the work under the contract has been satisfactorily carried out; whether the rates quoted are in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the applicable schedule of rates; whether the work has been carried out properly are issues which have to be addressed, among other questions, by the competent authority before an appropriate decision is taken. The jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot appropriately be exercised in such matters. The remedy of the contractor, if he is aggrieved by non payment, would be to either file an ordinary civil suit or if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, to invoke the terms of the agreement. ............It is true that there is no absolute bar in entertaining a petition in a contractual matter. However, in cases such as the present, several issues on facts which have been noted in the earlier part of this judgement have to be determined by the competent authority. The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 is not warranted for what the petitioner seeks in essence is a decree in a civil suit which cannot be granted in this proceeding, particularly having regard to the nature of the issues involved. The Court, therefore, declines to entertain this petition." 4. Following the earlier view of the Division Bench and for the reasons indicated above, we decline to entertain the petition and relegate the petitioner to pursue the ordinary civil remedy or, if there is an arbitration agreement, to invoke the terms of the agreement. 5. The Court, therefore, declines to entertain this petition." 4. Following the earlier view of the Division Bench and for the reasons indicated above, we decline to entertain the petition and relegate the petitioner to pursue the ordinary civil remedy or, if there is an arbitration agreement, to invoke the terms of the agreement. 5. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.