JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar, counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, counsel appearing for the respondent- State. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "For issuance of appropriate direction upon the Respondent Authorities to forthwith release the payment of part construction having done by the Petitioner in connection with Agreement No. 1/05-06 with regard to construction of Bus Stand, Beria, Medininagar and also make the payment of Rs. 10 Lacs for the losses having suffered by the Petitioner on account of apathetic and non cooperative attitude of the Respondents together with the earnest / security amount, while considering the fact that due to latches on the part of Respondents in connection with the work order in question the Petitioner has been prevented from executing the work in time." 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the work was allocated to the petitioner by the Special Officer Municipality, Medininagar vide letter dated 10.03.2006 for an amount of Rs. 84,57,925/- and the work was to be completed within a period of 180 days. 5. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in spite of repeated request, the necessary lay out plan was not handed over to the petitioner and even the over head electricity line was not removed so as to construct the building which was a part of the work. 6. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that although the work could not be completed because of laches on the part of the respondents, but whatever work has been done by the petitioner, the payment should be made to the petitioner and for that purpose, the instant writ petition has been filed. 7. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that a counteraffidavit has been filed in this case wherein at Annexure-E, a Memo No. 1749 dated 01.06.2007 has been annexed indicating that a team for conducting an enquiry and preparing a report in connection with the work of the petitioner was constituted, but the respondents have not filed the report prepared pursuant to the said Memo dated 01.06.2007. 8. 8. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that a specific statement has been made in para 5 of the counteraffidavit that the payment was made as per the measurement book and bill submitted by the Junior Engineer, but due to inferior quality of work, big cracks in the bus ways and platform were noticed and despite the undertaking given by the petitioner, it was not repaired. He submits that the instant writ petition involves disputed questions of fact and writ petition containing disputed questions of fact arising out of money claim and contractual matter, is not maintainable. 9. However, counsel for the respondents further submits that the report pursuant to the Memo dated 01.06.2007 must have been prepared and the same can be provided to the writ petitioner. 10. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that disputed questions of fact are involved in this case and an allegation has been levelled against the petitioner that whatever work the petitioner has done, was also not up to the mark. However, it further appears that an enquiry team was constituted vide aforesaid Memo dated 01.06.2007, but the enquiry report is not on record. 11. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the writ petitioner as prayed for in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it will be open to the petitioner to file a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Daltonganj, Palamau asking for a copy of the report prepared pursuant to the aforesaid Memo dated 01.06.2007 and also raise its grievance before the said authority within a period of one month from today. The Deputy Commissioner, Daltonganj, Palamau is directed to provide to the petitioner a copy of the report, if any, prepared pursuant to Memo dated 01.06.2007. If any such representation is filed and if any amount is found admissible to the petitioner, the same be paid to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. If any claim of the petitioner is rejected by the authority, the same should be rejected by a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 12. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.