JUDGMENT Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The petitioner admittedly is a contractor. Respondent No. 3, as back as in 2016, had floated a contract and had invited the tenders for awarding the work of the balance tile floor, ceiling work in the inspection house at Mahuwa Khera Ganj, block Kashipur District U.S. Nagar, in 4th Sub Division, Kashipur, Division Udham Singh Nagar. The total cost of the contract was estimated to be Rs. 26,96,000/-. The work contract being Contract No. 26/EE/2016-17 dated 27.06.2016 was executed and awarded in favour of the petitioner on 27.06.2016. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of the contract, after its commencement of work on 27.06.2016, the same was satisfactorily completed on 19.09.2016, and as per his case in the writ petition, he submits that a total amount of Rs. 30,38,608/- is due to be paid to him, which according to him is not a disputed amount and in that eventuality, the writ petition would be tenable for issuing an appropriate writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents for the payment of admitted amount. 3. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is an admitted amount, and hence a writ of mandamus could be issued, this Court is constrained to accept the tenacity of the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the reason being that the work completion took place way back on 19.09.2016, even if at all there was no dispute with regard to the payment of the amount as the learned counsel for the petitioner contends in his argument, in that eventuality, he was expected to approach the Court within a reasonable time frame. There is an inordinate delay of more than four years. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was filing representations and that is why he could not approach the Court earlier. 4. This Court is of the view that an interse dispute between the contractor and the contracting party, is specifically governed by the terms of the contract. Merely by filing of the representations and waiting for its decision for last four years, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take the benefit of lapses on his part on this ground. 5. 4. This Court is of the view that an interse dispute between the contractor and the contracting party, is specifically governed by the terms of the contract. Merely by filing of the representations and waiting for its decision for last four years, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take the benefit of lapses on his part on this ground. 5. Besides this, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amount stands admitted is yet again based upon an interpretation given to the correspondence dated 26.11.2020 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), which is a communication made by the Chief Engineer to the Secretary (Irrigation), wherein in accordance with paras 9, 10, 11 and 12, which are extracted hereunder, in fact, it seems that it pertained to the work performed in the years 2012-13 to 2016-17, where there had been certain irregularities by the Executive Engineer, who has retired from the services, against whom an inquiry proceeding was pending consideration and the work, which was got performed was beyond the proper prior sanctioned amount. The extract reads as under:- **9& voxruh; gS fd o"kZ 2012&13 ls 2016&17 rd flapkbZ [k.M] dk'khiqj esa fuekZ.k dk;ksZ esa vfu;feRrk gsrq rRdkyhu vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk Jh jke ldy vk;Z ¼orZeku esa lsokfuo`Rr½ ds fo:} 'kklu LRkj ls tkWap izpfyr gSA Jh vk;Z] rRdkyhu vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk dks 'kklu }kjk fn;s x;s pktZ'khV esa mDr 02 la[;k fujh{k.k Hkouksa esa iqujhf{kr ;kstuk dh Lohd`fr ds fcuk Lohd`r ykxr ls vf/kd /kujkf'k ds dk;Z fd;s tkus dk Hkh mYys[k gSA mDr tkWp esa 'kklu Lrj ls fu.kZ; fy;k tkuk gSA 10& bl izkdj mDr 02 la[;k fujh{k.k Hkouksa esa Lohd`r ykxr ls vf/kd /kujk'kh ds dk;Z djk;s tkus dkj.k lEcfU/kr Bsdsnkjksa esa chtdksa ds Hkqxrku yfEcr gSA Hkqxrku u gksus ds dkj.k lEcfU/kr Bsdsnkjksa }kjk ek0 mPp U;k;ky;] uSuhrky esa fjV ;kfpdk;sa ;ksftr dh tk jgh gSA fjV ;kfpdkvksa esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk lEcfU/kr Bsdsnkjksa ¼;kph½ ds izR;kosnu ij fu.kZ; ysus gsrq foHkkx dks funsZf'kr fd;k tk jgk gSA 11&vr% Lohd`r ykxr ls /kujkf'k ds dk;Z djk;s tkus ds dkj.k ,d vksj tgkW rRdkyhu vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk ds fo:} tkWp dh dk;Zokgh 'kklu Lrj ij xfreku gS ogha nwljh vksj Hkqxrku u gksus ds dkj.k lEcfU/kr Bsdsnkjksa }kjk nk;j dh x;h fjV ;kfpdkvksa esa ek0 U;k;ky; }kjk muds izR;kosnu ij fof/k lEer fu.kZ; ysus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k tk jgk gS] ftld dkj.k foHkkx ds le{k fo’ke ifjfLFkfr mRiUu gks x;h gSA 12&tgkWa rd Bsdsnkjksa }kjk fd;s x;s dk;ksZa ds Hkqxrku dk iz'u gS] ds lEcU/k esa voxr djkuk gS fd l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk vfrfjDr dk;ksZa gsrq rRle; fufonk vkeaf=r dh xbZ ,oa Bsdsnkjksa }kjk fufonk izfdz;k esa Hkkx fy;k x;k rFkk lQy Bsdsnkjksa ds lkFk foHkkx }kjk vuqcU/k xfBr fd;k x;kA vuqcU/k ds vuqlkj Bsdsnkj }kjk ekSds ij dk;Z lEikfnr fd;k x;k ,oa lEcfU/kr dfu"B vfHk;Urk }kjk dk;Z ls larq"V gksdj eki&iqfLrdk esa mDr dk;Z dh eki ntZ dh xbZA lEcfU/kr lgk;d vfHk;Urk }kjk mDr dk;Z dk chtd rS;kj dj vuqeksnuksijkUr Hkqxrku gsrq vf/k"kklh vfHk;Urk ds dk;kZy; esa izLrqr fd;s x;sA bl izdkj izdj.k esa Bsdsnkj fdlh Hkh izdkj ls nks"kh ¼mRrjnk;h½ izrhr ugha gksrs gSa] vfirq rRdkyhu vf/k"kklh vfHk;Urk }kjk Lohd`r ykxr ls vf/kd ykxr ds dk;Z djk;s x;s gSA** 6. Hence, in view of the finding recorded in the said correspondence, it cannot be said that the amount claimed by the petitioner in the present writ petition to be not disputed and it is an undisputed amount. Hence, in view of the finding recorded in the said correspondence, it cannot be said that the amount claimed by the petitioner in the present writ petition to be not disputed and it is an undisputed amount. Admittedly, the petitioner is governed by the terms of the contract, which itself contemplates in its clause 44 an Arbitration Clause, which reads as under:- "Every dispute, difference or question which may at any time arises between the parties have to or any person claiming under them, the thing arising out or in respect of this deed or the subject matter thereof, shall be referred to the arbitration of addl. Chief Engineer/Superintending Engineer or any person nominated by him. It will be no objection to any such appointment that the arbitrator so appointed is Government servant than he had to deal with matter to which the contract relates and that in the course of his duties as Govt. servant as had expressed views on all of any of the matters in dispute or difference. In the event of the arbitrator to where the matter is originally referred being transferred or vacating his office or being unable to act for any reason whatsoever he, shall either enter upon the reference himself or appoint another person to act as arbitrator. Such person shall be entitled to proceed with reference from stage it was left by his predecessor. It is also a term of this contract that no person other than a person appointed as aforesaid should act is arbitrator and if for any person that is not possible the matter is not to be referred to arbitration at all. In all cases where the court of the claim in dispute is Rs.50000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) and above the arbitrator shall give reasons for the award." 7. In that eventuality, since it is a detailed accounting which has to be undergone with regard to over budgeting of the work performed by the petitioner, all these aspects require a factual determination, which cannot be agitated in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the writ petition for the nature of reliefs sought for since it emanates from a contractual obligations, the remedy available to the petitioner would be to approach an Arbitrator as per the terms of the contract. 8. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the writ petition for the nature of reliefs sought for since it emanates from a contractual obligations, the remedy available to the petitioner would be to approach an Arbitrator as per the terms of the contract. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.