JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.4.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4137 of 2014, the respondents of the writ petition has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The writ petition being W.P.(C ) No.4137 of 2014 was filed by M/s. Tiwary Electrical and Engineering Works against South Eastern Railway praying therein to make payment of the materials supplied by them to South Eastern Railway. The writ petitioner claimed that some purchase order was issued by the Senior Divisional Material Manager, South Eastern Railway, Adra in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said order, some materials were supplied which was received by Section Engineer (Electric), Bhaga, South Eastern Railway on 22.2.2011. Claim of the writ petitioner is that in spite of receipt of the materials and submission of bills, the price of the said materials was not released in their favour. Since the money was not paid to the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner filed the instant writ application claiming the dues of Rs.16,42,779/-. 3. The respondents were noticed and they filed their counter affidavit in the writ petition. In their counter affidavit, they have stated that against purchase order No.CI/Elect (G)/42/98/11/5159/0046/0/26046 dated 13.2.2012, no material has been supplied by the writ petitioner. Further they mentioned that materials supplied is much less than the claim made by the firm, and the firm has demnded money by raising false bill. Further they submitted that in respect of several purchase orders, materials and bills were not supplied to the consignee as such, no occasion arises for making any payment. 4. After hearing the parties, learned Single Judge, vide impugned order dated 28.4.2016, directed the respondent nos.2 to 8 to make payment of Rs.16,42,779/-. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, Railway Administration has preferred this appeal. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the materials were accepted by the respondents without any objection. He submits that after accepting the materials, the respondents cannot refuse to make payment to the petitioner. He submits that learned Single Judge has correctly directed the respondents to make payment since they have accepted the materials which was supplied by the petitioner. 7. Counsel for the Union of India by referring to several paragraphs of the counter affidavit submits that the writ petition involved disputed question of facts thus, the impugned order could not have been passed. 7. Counsel for the Union of India by referring to several paragraphs of the counter affidavit submits that the writ petition involved disputed question of facts thus, the impugned order could not have been passed. He submits that in the counter affidavit, there is no admission on the part of the respondents that the petitioner is entitled to receive the amount of Rs.16,42,779/-. 8. We have heard learned counsel for both sides at length and have perused the record of the case. 9. Admittedly in the writ petition, the petitioner has made money claim for alleged supply of materials to the Railway Administration. The learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has relied upon the submission of the petitioner and has come to conclusion that when the materials were received by the Railway Administration and there is nothing in the counter affidavit to show that payment was made, then in that circumstances the amount claimed becomes payable and thus directed to make payment of Rs.16,42,779/-. 10. In the writ petition, the petitioner had claimed supply of several articles to the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed by the Railways, there is no admission that the writ petitioner was entitled to receive Rs.16,42,779/-. On the contrary, in the counter affidavit in paragraph 10, it has been specifically stated that no material had been supplied by M/s. Tiwary Electrical & Engineering Works against purchase order no. CI/Elect (G)/42/98/11/5159/0046/0/26046 dated 13.2.2012. Further in paragraph 11, it has been categorically stated that writ petitioner had claimed supply of large quantity of materials under different heading whereas supply was of much less quantity. In paragraph 12, they have stated that the firm is demanding money by raising false bill. In paragraph 15, they have also stated that materials and bills were not supplied to the consignee, so question of payment of cost does not arise. Same is the averment made in paragraph 16 also. 11. From the pleading of the parties, it is crystal clear that there are serious disputed question of fact in respect of supply of materials. The petitioner claimed that they have supplied the materials but the Railway Administration denied. The above statement made in the counter affidavit has not been taken note of by the learned Single Judge. 11. From the pleading of the parties, it is crystal clear that there are serious disputed question of fact in respect of supply of materials. The petitioner claimed that they have supplied the materials but the Railway Administration denied. The above statement made in the counter affidavit has not been taken note of by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge only on the fact that the counter affidavit does not mention about making any payment by the Railways, have directed in the order impugned to pay Rs.16,42,779/-. 12. Further the writ petition is in the nature of money claim. There is no admission on the part of the respondents in respect of the claim made by the petitioner. Thus, the learned Single Judge could not have directed to make payment of Rs.16,42,779/- in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. 13. In view of the above finding the impugned order dated 28.4.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4137 of 2014 is set aside and accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Pradip Kumar Mohanty, CJ. : I agree.