JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the petitioner has sought for direction upon the respondent authority-Vinoba Bhave University to disburse the amount equal to the work executed by the petitioner in pursuance to the work order issued in favour of the petitioner dated 17.08.2011 under the order of the Vice Chancellor of the University. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner has been allotted the work of construction of the teachers quarter of Vinoba Bhave Unviersity Teachers Campus, Hazaribagh valued at Rs.72,89,450/-, although the tender value of the work was Rs.63,05,374/- and the work was to be completed within twelve months with specific stipulation that the date of commencement will be within seven days from the exclusive of the order. The petitioner has started the execution of the aforesaid work but could not have been completed within the period of twelve months, however, the competent authority of the University has granted extension of the time but the amount has not been paid for part of the work order performed, therefore, the work could not have been completed. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that if the amount would have been paid in time the work could have been completed, therefore, there is no laches on the part of the petitioner rather the respondent authority of the University has not co-operated in proper execution of the work. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the Annexure-D to the counter affidavit submitted that the part of the money which is claiming is admitted on the basis of quantum of the amount spent on the part of the building and about Rs. 33,00,000/ lakhs have been paid. He further submits by referring to the submission made at para 13 of the counter affidavit that the bill is pending before the competent authority, therefore, appropriate order has been sought to be passed upon the competent authority of the University for disbursement of the amount equal to the work performed since according to the petitioner out of tender value of Rs.63,05,374/- he has already spent Rs.45,00,000/- approximately and therefore he is entitled to get Forty Five lakhs. 5. Ms. 5. Ms. I. Sen Choudhary, learned counsel for the University has submitted by taking aid of the statement made by the respondent in the counter affidavit that the entire work was to be completed by the petitioner within twelve months could not have been completed, however showing bona fide, several extension of time had been given but even on the extended time the work has not been completed, ultimately the money which has been furnished by the University Grants Commission for the purpose of construction of teachers'' quarters was returned back and, therefore at the moment it cannot be paid to the petitioner. 6. Her submission is that since the petitioner has not completed the work and the teachers'' quarters is still incomplete, hence money which has been sent by the University Grants Commission for a purpose has not been achieved. She has also disputed the amount claimed to be spent upon the construction of the aforesaid work and in view thereof since it is a serious dispute of money claim, therefore, it cannot be adjudicated under the forum of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating the rival submissions, it is evident from the materials available on record as also gathered by this Court from the argument advanced on behalf of the parties that the petitioner is claiming the amount which according to the petitioner has been spent on the construction of the teachers'' quarter to the extent of Forty Five lakhs while on the other hand the University is disputing the aforesaid quantum and not only quantum rather disputing the entitlement of the petitioner on the ground that it is the petitioner who since has not completed the work, therefore, the entire money which has been sent by the University Grants Commission for construction of teachers'' quarters has since been returned back hence the purpose for which the money has been furnished by the University Grants Commission i.e. construction of teachers'' quarters to be constructed by the year 2012, has not yet been completed. 8. 8. It is further evident by the document annexed by the respondent that the time was extended for completion of the work by giving time extension four times, as would be evident from the reference of the same made in the communication dated 10.01.2015 (Annexure-C/1), therefore, according to the assessed value since pertains to money claim, which is in serious dispute, as such, it would not be proper for this Court to pass order by issuing writ of command, taking into consideration the fact that it is a disputed money claim. 9. In view thereof, the writ petition fails and is dismissed, however, it is open for the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available, if he so wishes.