ORDER 1. Aggrieved by order dated 11.07.2013 whereby, the respondent no.2 ordered 5% deduction from the total amount payable to the petitioner and for a direction to the respondents to pay the balance amount of Rs. 6,78,593/- with penal interest to the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm, which was awarded work mentioned at Sl. No. 16 in NIT No. 01 of 2007-08. Vide letter dated 14.02.2008, the date of completion of work was fixed as 25.03.2008. Though, the work was completed, payment of balance amount of Rs. 6,78,593/- was not made to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1842 of 2011. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 01.08.2011 directing the respondent no.2 to decide the claim of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Consequently, the respondent no. 2 passed order dated 11.07.2013, which has been challenged in the writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the work was completed on 30.05.2008 and in terms of Clause 23 of the tender conditions the defect liability period was 5 years only however, 5% deduction from the total amount has been made on an allegation that the BT work done by the petitioner has been found of lesser thickness and it was found uprooted in certain patches. 5. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have taken a stand that the contractor failed to maintain the road for 5 years which resulted in deterioration of the road and therefore, it was decided to deduct 5 % from the value of the work. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand reiterates the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submits that the certificate issued by the junior officer is not binding and it is always open to the higher authorities to issue direction for inspection. It is further submitted that in view of a specific clause for arbitration in the agreement, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 6. The tender document dated 14.02.2008 refers to letter dated 29.07.2006 which mandates retention of 10% as security deposit. It is further submitted that in view of a specific clause for arbitration in the agreement, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 6. The tender document dated 14.02.2008 refers to letter dated 29.07.2006 which mandates retention of 10% as security deposit. Clause 23 of the tender conditions provides that the defect liability period would be 5 years and during the said period the contractor on 15 days notice is required to carry the repair work, failing which the work would be completed from the security deposit of the contractor. It is not in dispute that the petitioner completed the work on 30.05.2008 and thus, the defect liability period would end on 30.05.2013. From the impugned order dated 11.07.2013, it is apparent that on the basis of an inspection carried on 04.07.2013, the respondent no. 2 ordered deduction of 5% from the work value. As noticed above, in terms of the tender conditions, after the defect liability period was over the contractor was not liable to maintain the road and thus, deduction of 5% is absolutely arbitrary. Moreover, under Clause 23, during the defect liability period deduction on account of expenses incurred for repairing, if the contractor on 15 days notice has failed to remove the defect, is permissible whereas, respondent no. 5 has ordered 5% deduction. In the proceeding of W.P.(C) No. 1842 of 2011 or even in the present proceeding, it is not pleaded that 15 days notice was given to the contractor for repair work which it has failed to carry. It is also not averred that repair work has been undertaken by the department nonetheless, deduction of 5% has been ordered by the respondent no. 2. Impugned order dated 11.07.2013 is whimsical and it has been passed in gross violation of the terms of the contract. Vide order dated 01.08.2011 in W.P.(C) No. 1842 of 2011, this Court ordered respondent no. 2 to make payment of the admitted amount with reasonable interest. The said direction of this Court has also been ignored by the respondent no. 2. It has been admitted by the counsel for the parties that order dated 01.08.2011 has attained finality. In “S. Nagaraj & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.” reported in 1993 Supp.(4) SCC 595, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under, 12. The said direction of this Court has also been ignored by the respondent no. 2. It has been admitted by the counsel for the parties that order dated 01.08.2011 has attained finality. In “S. Nagaraj & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.” reported in 1993 Supp.(4) SCC 595, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under, 12. “........Law on the binding effect of an order passed by a court of law is well settled. Nor there can be any conflict of opinion that if an order had been passed by a court which had jurisdiction to pass it then the error or mistake in the order can be got corrected by a higher court or by an application for clarification, modification or recall of the order and not by ignoring the order by any authority actively or passively or disobeying it expressly or impliedly. Even if the order has been improperly obtained the authorities cannot assume on themselves the role of substituting it or clarifying and modifying it as they consider proper................” 7. The plea questioning the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of “arbitration clause” is liable to be rejected because, the present proceeding is an outcome of noncompliance of order passed in W.P.(C) No. 1842 of 2011. Considering the above facts, I hereby issue a writ of mandamus to the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Jharkhand to ensure payment of Rs. 6,78,593/- with 6% interest from 01.08.2011, to the petitioner, failing which a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would be initiated against the respondent no. 2, suo-moto. Ordered accordingly.