ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order no. 148 dated 23.08.2016 passed by the Secretary Department of Rural Development (Rural Works Wing), Government of Jharkhand (respondent no. 2), whereby the representation of the petitioner for payment of the work done by him pursuant to Agreement No.61F2 of 2011-12 has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to make payment of the work done after rescinding the contract and refund the Security amount with interest at the prevailing market rate. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the Executive Engineer, Rural Development Special Division Seraikella (respondent no. 5) issued notice inviting tender (NIT) for construction of 50 beded Hostel in Muriya Madarsa School under Gamaharia Block in the District of Seraikella-Kharsawan and pursuant to the said NIT the petitioner submitted his tender. The petitioner being the lowest bidder was allotted the work. An agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 on 14.02.2012 vide Agreement No. 61 F2 of 2011-12. The petitioner deposited the earnest money as per the terms of the agreement. The work order was issued vide memo no. 257 dated 14.02.2012 and as per the said work order, the work was to be completed by 13.02.2013. The District Welfare Officer, Seraikella vide his letter no. 221 dated 14.03.2012 requested the respondent no. 5 to stop the work as he received objections from the villagers and as such the work was stopped. The respondent no. 5 vide letter as contained in memo no. 971 dated 05.07.2012 requested the District Welfare Officer, Seraikella to take necessary decision regarding the stoppage of construction work and thereafter vide letter no. 739 dated 07.09.2012, the District Welfare Officer, Seraikella-Kharsawan allowed to resume the work. The work was thus restarted on 05.10.2012, however the villagers put lock in the godown of the petitioner and took away the construction materials from the site. The petitioner requested the S.D.M, Seraikella vide his letter dated 05.10.2012 for providing security at the construction site i.e. the hostel, however nothing was done and the work could not be started. The petitioner vide letter dated 06.10.2012 informed the respondent no. 5 about the said situation. The petitioner has contended that neither the SDM, Seraikella nor the respondent no. The petitioner requested the S.D.M, Seraikella vide his letter dated 05.10.2012 for providing security at the construction site i.e. the hostel, however nothing was done and the work could not be started. The petitioner vide letter dated 06.10.2012 informed the respondent no. 5 about the said situation. The petitioner has contended that neither the SDM, Seraikella nor the respondent no. 5 took any action on the application of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner vide letter dated 09.07.2013 requested the respondent no. 5 to make payment of Rs. 11,01,721/- for the work already done by him with a further request to refund the earnest money on terminating the agreement. Similar request was made to the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 5 vide letter no. 1487 dated 20.09.2013 however directed the petitioner to restart the work also informing him that some of the works done by him are of no use and if the said work is re-allotted to some other agency, the same will have been done after demolishing the structure/construction made by the petitioner and the cost to be incurred in demolishing the same would be recovered from the earnest money deposited by him. The petitioner thereafter sent a legal notice to the respondent nos. 2 to 5 on 01.10.2013. The petitioner also filed a writ petition being W.P.(C)No. 6689 of 2013, which was disposed of by this Court on 19.08.2015 directing the petitioner to file representation before the respondent no. 2, who, in turn, was directed to dispose of the same within two months. Thereafter, the petitioner filed representation before the respondent no. 2, but the order was not complied within the stipulated time and thus a contempt petition being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 757 of 2015 was filed. The respondents filed show cause stating inter alia that the representation of the petitioner was rejected vide order no. 148 dated 23.08.2016. Accordingly, the contempt petition was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order no. 148 dated 23.08.2016 and thus, the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the work could not be done due to latches on the part of the respondent authorities and as such the petitioner is entitled to get the amount for the work already done by him and he is also entitled to get refund of earnest money. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the work could not be done due to latches on the part of the respondent authorities and as such the petitioner is entitled to get the amount for the work already done by him and he is also entitled to get refund of earnest money. It is further submitted that initially, the work was stopped by the District Welfare Officer, Seraikella-Kharsawan and after resuming of the work, the same was again stopped on 05.10.2012 due to hurdle created by the villagers. The information to that effect was given to the authorities but no action was taken by them in this regard. It is further submitted that after the lapse of about a year, the respondents insisted to restart the work on the old rate, which was not possible as cost of materials had gone high. Therefore, the petitioner requested the authorities to revise the rate, but there was no response and hence the petitioner requested for rescinding the contract. It is further submitted that the action of the respondent authorities is highly arbitrary and malafide as the work could not be completed within the stipulated time due to inaction on the part of the respondent authorities. It is also submitted that the work done by the petitioner is as per map approved by the authority concerned, that too, under the supervision of Engineer-in-Charge. The impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the said order. The respondent no. 2 has wrongly observed in the impugned order that the petitioner did not lodge any FIR against the alleged theft from the construction site as the District Welfare Officer, Seraikella-Kharsawan had directed the petitioner to make a complaint before the SDM, Seraikella against any hurdle in execution of the work. 4. Per contra, The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the District Welfare Officer, Seraikella-Kharsawan vide his letter no. 2216 dated 14.03.2012 had merely directed for stopping the work till dispute is settled. However, the petitioner vide his letter dated 01.06.2012 requested to settle the dispute within one week or to make payment of the work done by him and refund the security amount. 2216 dated 14.03.2012 had merely directed for stopping the work till dispute is settled. However, the petitioner vide his letter dated 01.06.2012 requested to settle the dispute within one week or to make payment of the work done by him and refund the security amount. The District Welfare Officer, Seraikella-Kharsawan vide letter dated 07.09.2012 again requested the petitioner to proceed with the work and the same was restarted, however the petitioner vide letter dated 06.10.2012 requested the respondent no. 5 to make payment on final measurement of the work done and to refund the security amount after rescinding the agreement on the ground of hike of material cost. The respondent no. 5 repeatedly requested the petitioner to restart the work, but the petitioner expressed his inability to proceed with work and got the measurement of the work done at his own and submitted the bill of Rs.11,01,721/- for payment and refund of the security amount vide his letter dated 09.07.2013. It is further submitted that though the respondent no. 5 directed the petitioner vide letter dated 20.09.2013 to restart the work, however, the petitioner filed the earlier writ petition making monetary claim. The petitioner’s representation has been rejected by a reasoned order and thus, the same requires no interference. It is also submitted that the work done by the petitioner is of no purpose as the new agency has to demolish some of the work done by the petitioner before starting the said work. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner was allotted the work for construction of 50 beded Hostel in Muriya Madarsa School under Gamaharia Block in the District of Seraikella-Kharsawan. Both the parties have raised claim and counter claim alleging each other for delayed execution of work. The case of the petitioner is that he started the work in full swing, however in view of the letter of the District Welfare Officer, Seraikellka-Kharsawan dated 14.03.2012, the work was stopped. The work was restarted on 05.10.2012 but due to obstruction made by the villagers, he made application to the SDM, Seraikella for providing proper security at the site and also intimated the said situation to the respondent no. 5, however nothing was done by them. The work was restarted on 05.10.2012 but due to obstruction made by the villagers, he made application to the SDM, Seraikella for providing proper security at the site and also intimated the said situation to the respondent no. 5, however nothing was done by them. Finding no way, the petitioner requested the authorities to make payment of the work already done by him and also to refund the earnest money by cancelling the agreement. It has also been contended that the respondent no. 2 has passed the impugned order without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also ignoring the fact that the delay in completion of the work was caused due to inaction on the part of the respondent authorities who kept mum on the application of the petitioner for providing security at the site. On the contrary, the case of the respondents is that that in spite of repeated requests made by the respondent no. 5, the petitioner did not restart the work and as such the earnest money of the petitioner has been forfeited as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. It has further been contended by the respondents that payment for the work done by the petitioner cannot be released as the new allottee will have to restart the work after demolishing some part of the work done by the petitioner. The respondent no. 2 has observed in the impugned order dated 23.08.2016 that only after three months of the issuance of the work order dated 14.02.2012, the petitioner wrote letter dated 01.06.2012 to the respondents for return of earnest money as well as for payment towards the work already done by him. The said gesture of the petitioner shows that he was not intending to execute the work from the very beginning. The respondent no. 2 has further observed in the impugned order that in spite of repeated requests made by the respondent no. 5, the petitioner did not restart the work. The respondent no. 5 in his letter dated 20.09.2013 has alleged that some of the work done by the petitioner were of no use, though the said stand of the respondent no. 5 has been disputed by the petitioner by stating that said work has been done is under the supervision of the Engineer-In charge of the department as per the approved map. 5 in his letter dated 20.09.2013 has alleged that some of the work done by the petitioner were of no use, though the said stand of the respondent no. 5 has been disputed by the petitioner by stating that said work has been done is under the supervision of the Engineer-In charge of the department as per the approved map. These are purely disputed question of facts, which cannot be determined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the writ petition primarily involves inter se contractual dispute and the petitioner has in fact made money claim against the respondents. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 728 held thus: “69. The position thus summarised in the aforesaid principles has to be understood in the context of discussion that preceded which we have pointed out above. As per this, no doubt, there is no absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition even in contractual matters or where there are disputed questions of fact or even when monetary claim is raised. At the same time, discretion lies with the High Court which under certain circumstances, it can refuse to exercise. It also follows that under the following circumstances, “normally”, the Court would not exercise such a discretion: 69.1. The Court may not examine the issue unless the action has some public law character attached to it. 69.2. Whenever a particular mode of settlement of dispute is provided in the contract, the High Court would refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and relegate the party to the said mode of settlement, particularly when settlement of disputes is to be resorted to through the means of arbitration. 69.3. If there are very serious disputed questions of fact which are of complex nature and require oral evidence for their determination. 69.4. Money claims per se particularly arising out of contractual obligations are normally not to be entertained except in exceptional circumstances.” 7. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when a particular mode of settlement is provided in the contract itself, the High Court may refuse to exercise its discretion and relegate the party to the said mode of settlement. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when a particular mode of settlement is provided in the contract itself, the High Court may refuse to exercise its discretion and relegate the party to the said mode of settlement. If the relief sought in the writ petition is primarily a monetary claim arising out of contractual obligations, the writ petition is to be entertained only in exceptional circumstances. 8. Though there is no absolute bar in entertaining the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the High Court in contractual matters, yet money claims arising out of contractual obligations are normally not to be entertained except in exceptional circumstances. The monetary claim and other consequential claims made by the petitioner through the present writ petition have been seriously disputed by the respondents, which can effectively be adjudicated before a fact finding court/forum on the basis of the evidences laid by both the parties. The respondent no. 2, in the impugned order dated 23.08.2016, after discussing the chronological events of the case has rejected the claim of the petitioner which does not warrant interference unless the rival factual contentions of the parties are adjudicated in a proceeding before appropriate court/forum as discussed hereinabove. 9. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate recourse against the order passed by the respondent no. 2 with consequential relief, in accordance with law.