Order : Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner entered into the Agreement no. 5 F2 of 200708 with the respondent Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Road Construction Department, Gumla (respondent no. 6) for widening of pavement from Km. 169 to Km. 181 of N.H.23 from the estimated cost of Rs. 3,32,69,900/ to be completed within 15 months from the date of commencement i.e. 1st August, 2007. As it appears from the stand of the respondents reflected in the counter affidavit at paragraph 22, petitioner has completed 88.79% of work and more than 10% work is left over hence revalidation/relaxation of the work is required by the competent authority and proposal for the same is pending before the competent authority. 3. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking payment of admitted dues for the work executed and also for a direction upon the respondents to close the agreement and refund the earnest money, security deposit and any penalty for delay in completion of work asserting that there are no laches on the part of the petitioner. Petitioner has referred to an FIR bearing T. Tangar (Thethai Tangar) P.S. Case No. 20 of 2008 Annexure2 registered under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Criminal Law Amendment Act in relation to certain use of firearms and exertion of coercion to receive ransom (rangdari) from the petitionerfirm. 4. It is submitted that work has been delayed for the remaining part which also involves construction of a small span bridge which requires use of explosives. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the request of petitioner for payment of admissible dues against the work executed is pending before the competent authority under the respondents. 5. Counsel for the respondents has also referred to various correspondences exchanged between the petitioner and the office of the Executive Engineer in relation to execution of the work. Respondents have also stated at paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit that the Executive Engineer had only forwarded the application made by the petitioner for extension of time without any recommendation. The institution of the FIR due to naxal attack is also accepted on the part of the respondents at paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit. Respondents further indicate that vide letter no. The institution of the FIR due to naxal attack is also accepted on the part of the respondents at paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit. Respondents further indicate that vide letter no. 504 dated 28th April, 2012, the petitioner was informed regarding decision of termination of the agreement and he was called for final measurement to be taken on 15th May, 2012. They have also stated at paragraph 13 that petitioner has been paid the bills of delayed work after deducting 10% penalty under Clause 2 of the agreement. 6. Averments in the pleadings show that on the one part approximately 88.79% of the work has been completed and rest of it is pending. The relevant facts traversed by the parties through their pleadings have been noticed hereinabove only for the purpose to show that neither the remaining portion of the work has been executed nor any extension of time has been granted by the competent authority on the request of the petitioner while respondents say that the agreement has been terminated. The rights of the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the agreement which they have entered. 7. In exercise of writ jurisdiction where question of fact contested by the parties are involved, no determination of the claim for admitted dues can be made. It is however open for the competent authority to arrive at an informed decision on the claim of the petitioner as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and on the basis of the measurement and material available. The parties are also at liberty to work out their remedy in any appropriate forum on the question of breach of reciprocal promises or claim arising out of the agreement. However, this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot issue specific direction, as prayed for, for payment of admissible dues towards execution of work. 8. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the aforesaid observations.