ORDER : AMIT SETH, J. 1. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner claiming the following reliefs: "(i) That, the respondents No.3 and 4 may kindly be directed to decide the application of the petitioner (Annexure-P/1 & P/2) within a time limit. (ii) That, respondents No.3 & 4 may kindly be directed to release the payment of the petitioner. (iii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also kindly, be granted to the petitioner. Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioner." 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to a requirement floated by respondent No.4 on G.E.M. Portal of the Government regarding the supply of Tree Guards, the petitioner submitted his rates for supply, which were accepted by respondent No.4. The petitioner was declared qualified on the G.E.M. Portal, and accordingly, he supplied 660 Tree Guards to respondent No.4 in terms of their requirement. However, in spite of the receipt of the goods supplied by the petitioner, payment for the same was not released by respondent No.4. The petitioner claims that he is entitled for payment of Rs.16,17,000/- from the respondents for the said supply. 4. Counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the rejoinder filed on 04.03.2025 and the documents appended thereto as Annexures-P/8, P/9, P/10 & P/11, submits that these invoices and other supporting documents evince the supply of Tree Guards made by the petitioner to respondent No.4. It is further submitted that these documents are available on the G.E.M. Portal till date. Learned counsel contends that there is no justifiable cause or reason available for respondent No.4 to deny payment of supply and, accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, by referring to their return and additional return, submits that they have taken a specific and categorical stand that no supply of Tree Guards whatsoever has been made by the petitioner to respondent No.4. He further submits that the documents relied upon by the petitioners are forged and concocted. In particular, Annexure-P/4 does not pertain to any supply order issued by respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that the documents relied upon by the petitioners are forged and concocted. In particular, Annexure-P/4 does not pertain to any supply order issued by respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioner. That apart, by referring to the pleadings in the additional return, learned counsel submits that respondent No.4 has disputed the authenticity of documents (Annexure-P/8, P/9, P/10, P/11 & P/12) and taken the stand that these documents have been fabricated by the petitioner to claim payment without having made any supply. It is further contended that the note sheet (Annexure-P/13), filed along with the rejoinder, is also disputed and a categorical assertion has been made that note sheet page filed at page 29 of the additional return is not available in the original file of respondent No.4 and the same appears to be fabricated by the petitioner. The pagination and authenticity of the said document have also been questioned. 6. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, expect for making evasive statements in their return and additional return, the specific and categorical stand taken by the petitioner in the writ petition and rejoinder have not been specifically adverted to or denied. It is submitted that the same amounts to an evasive reply and admission on the part of respondent No.4. Accordingly, the stand taken by respondent No.4 deserves to be discarded and the petition deserves to be allowed. 7. No other point has been pressed by learned counsel for the parties. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The perusal of pleadings of the rival parties and the submissions advanced on their behalf clearly indicates that the contentions of the petitioner regarding supply of Tree Guards to respondent No.4 has been categorically denied by them. The genuineness and authenticity of the documents relied upon by the petitioner are seriously disputed by respondent No.4. The claim raised by the petitioner pertains to recovery of contractual dues, which is disputed by respondents. It is fairly well settled in law that disputed questions of facts cannot be adjudicated merely by exchange of affidavits under the writ jurisdiction. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.03.2022 passed in W.P. No.21636/2021 ( M/s Choudhary Associates Engineers and Contractor vs. Union of India and anr. It is fairly well settled in law that disputed questions of facts cannot be adjudicated merely by exchange of affidavits under the writ jurisdiction. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.03.2022 passed in W.P. No.21636/2021 ( M/s Choudhary Associates Engineers and Contractor vs. Union of India and anr. ), order dated 31.01.2022 passed in W.P. No.1991/2022 ( M/s Trading Engineers vs. Central Public Work Department and Anr. ) has been pleased to hold that a writ court cannot be converted into the court of recovery of money for the petitioners arising out of contractual dispute between the parties. 10.Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Director of Agriculture and Others Vs. M.V.Ramchandan , 2023 Live Law (SC) 220, has been pleased to hold that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for recovery of money under the bills/invoices, is not to be entertained. 11. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition, and therefore, the same stands dismissed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to seek such remedy as may be permissible under law for the ventilation of the grievance. 12. With the aforesaid, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.