JUDGMENT The petitioner seeks a direction for the payment of outstandings in respect of unpaid bills. 2. The submission which has been made on behalf of the petitioner is that the claim put forth by the petitioner should be treated as admitted and hence, a writ in the nature of mandamus can be issued by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The issue engaging attention of this Court in this matter is as to whether it would be appropriate for the Court to entertain the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a mandamus for payment of the amount being demanded by the petitioner arising out of a contract. 4. We may observe that while exercising the discretion as to whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in a contractual matter, where a writ in the nature of mandamus is sought for payment of money (which would have the effect of passing a money decree) may be entertained, the Court has also to deal with the issue as to whether the writ petition would be an appropriate remedy when other remedies are available under ordinary civil law. 5. Admittedly, the claim of the petitioner is that the payment in respect of the work done pursuant to the award of a contract for carrying out certain construction work has not been made. This Court in a judgment dated 07.03.2014 in Writ Petition No. 1942 (MB) of 2014 has declined to entertain such a writ petition raising an issue similar to the issue raised in this writ petition. The relevant observations made by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 07.03.2014 in Writ Petition No. 1942 (MB) of 2014 are as follows: - "The claim of the petitioner is that the final payment in respect of the work done pursuant to the award of a contract for carrying out certain civil work has not been effected. In our view, it will not either be appropriate or proper for the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain a petition of this nature. The grant of relief of this nature would virtually amount to a money decree. In our view, it will not either be appropriate or proper for the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain a petition of this nature. The grant of relief of this nature would virtually amount to a money decree. The petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to the remedies available by raising such a claim either invoking an arbitration clause (if it exists in the contract between the parties) or if there is no provision for arbitration, to move the competent civil court with a money claim. We, accordingly, dismiss the petition, however, reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedy available in law." 6. In view of the above settled position of law, we are not inclined to interfere in this writ petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. 8. We may, however, observe that notwithstanding dismissal of the instant writ petition, it will be open to the petitioner to take recourse to any other legal remedy which may be available to it under law for redressal of its grievances.