Judgment: 1. Petitioner is a partnership firm. Respondent No. 1 - Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya (DAVV), Indore issued notice inviting tender for construction of 200 bedded girls hostel at IET Campus, Khandwa Road, Indore. The bid of petitioner was the lowest, therefore, it was accepted and a work order was issued in favour of petitioner after execution of contract. The case of petitioner is that it completed the work and a completion certificate was issued to petitioner vide Annexure P/4. During the progress of work, a fixed percentage of amount was deducted from the running bills towards security deposit and the total of this deduction comes to Rs. 32,82,716/- and according to petitioner, he is entitled to get the refund of said amount. Petitioner further submitted that after submission of final bill and as per said bill, petitioner was entitled to get Rs. 36,03,477/- as the net amount after deducting of welfare cess, VAT and commercial tax. However, instead of paying the amount, respondent No. 2 - Accountant General raised objections. Thus, petitioner has filed the present petition claiming the amount of final bill. 2. In response to the notice, respondents have filed their reply and according to respondents, petitioner is not entitled for any sum and the amount is disputed by the respondents. It is also submitted that petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy and on this ground alone, petition deserves to be dismissed. 3. During pendency of writ petition, on 18-3-2014 Shri N.K. Panjre, Executive Engineer of University attended the hearing and it was revealed that there is no dispute with regard to payment of roughly Rs. Twenty Lakhs. On the next date of hearing, respondent No. 1 produced the cheque for undisputed amount of Rs. 17,91,120/- therefore, we directed that said amount be paid to the petitioner. Respondents are disputing payment of rest of the amount. 4. In this connection, it is profitable to remember that writ petition under Article 226 is public law remedy and cannot be resorted to resolve private disputes see 2003 AIR SCW 3346, Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal and others. It has been held in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dolly Das, (1999) 4 SCC 450 that in absence of any statutory right, writ petition for claiming money claims is not maintainable. Paras 7 and 8 of said decision reads as under: "7. It has been held in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dolly Das, (1999) 4 SCC 450 that in absence of any statutory right, writ petition for claiming money claims is not maintainable. Paras 7 and 8 of said decision reads as under: "7. In the absence of constitutional or statutory rights being involved a writ proceeding would not lie to enforce contractual obligations even if it is sought to be enforced against the State or to avoid contractual liability arising thereto. In the absence of any statutory right Article 226 cannot be availed to claim any money in respect of breach contract or tort or otherwise. In the present case, the appellants have sought to exercise their powers under section 7 of the Act and, therefore, though the other consequences may be contractual in nature, the exercise of the right being under a statute, it cannot be said that the respondent could not approach the writ Court." 8. So far as the contention regarding laches of the respondent in filing the writ petition is concerned, delay, by itself, may not defeat the claim for relief unless the position of the appellant had been so altered which cannot be retracted on account of lapse of time or inaction of the other party. This aspect being dependent upon the examination of the facts of the case and such a contention not having been raised before the High court, it would not be appropriate to allow the appellants to raise such a contention for the first time before us. Besides, we may notice that the period for which the option of renewal has been exercised has not come to an end. During the subsistence of such a period certainly the respondent could make a complaint that such exercise of option was not available to the appellants and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the High court could be invoked even at a later stage. Further, the appellants are not put to undue hardship in any manner by reason of this delay in approaching the High court for a relief." 5. The next decision in line is reported in 2005 AIR SCW 5715, Orissa Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. v. Bharati Industries. It was a case where money claim was raised in a writ petition for the alleged breach of contract. It was held that writ jurisdiction is no remedy for such resolution of dispute. The next decision in line is reported in 2005 AIR SCW 5715, Orissa Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. v. Bharati Industries. It was a case where money claim was raised in a writ petition for the alleged breach of contract. It was held that writ jurisdiction is no remedy for such resolution of dispute. Paras 11, 14,15 of said decision reads as under:-- "11. In the instant case the High court has itself observed that disputed questions of fact were involved and yet went on to give directions as if it was adjudicating the money claim in a suit. The course is clearly impermissible. [See : General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur U.P. v. Satrughan Nishad and others, 2003(8) SCC 639 ), Rourkela Shramik Sangh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and another, 2003(4) SCC 317 ]. 14. Above being the position the High court's judgment is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. However, our interference in the matter shall not stand in the way of the writ petitioner seeking any other remedy as is available in law." In view of the foregoing discussion, we therefore, hold that so far as disputed amount is concerned, the writ petition is not a proper remedy. We accordingly dismiss the writ petition without touching the merits of the claim. No order as to costs.