A writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing payment of contractors' bills, as such cases fall within category (iii) as enumerated in Radha Krishna Agrawals case (supra), where the contract entered into between the State and the person aggrieved is non-statutory and purely contractual.

S.N.Jha, J.

1. The petitioner, a contractor, seeks mandamus for payment of his so called outstanding bills. He had come to this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 5 of 1992 (R) for the same very relief, which was disposed of on 6-1-1992 in the following terms:

In exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no writ of mandamus can be issused and the remedy of the petitioner is to raise grievance before the higher authorities which, we are sure, shall receive due consideration.

If the petitioners are still not paid their bills, the remedy of the petitioner would be either to enforce the arbitration agreement, if any, or to file a suit.

This application is permitted to be withdrawn as prayed for.

This writ application was filed on 19-2-1992 stating that pursuant to the aforesaid orders of this Court the petitioner filed representation on 10-1-1992 but no orders were passed by the concerned respondents. The writ application came up for preliminary hearing at the stage of admission on 5-3-1992 and was disposed of with a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to make payment of the pending bills, said to have been passed on 30-9-1989 itself, as expeditiously as possible before 31st March, 1992.

2. An application seeking review of the said order dated 5-3-1992 was filed on behalf of the respondents, namely, State Bihar and its officials, on 8-4-1992. After hearing the parties, the review application was allowed on 12-5-1992 and the writ application was directed to be heard observing that the review application will be treated as counter affidavit in the instant writ application. This matter, accordingly, was listed before us and heard finally with the consent of the parties.

3. Before we notice the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, it would be appropriate to briefly refer to the stand of the respondents. The sheet-anchor of the claim of the petitioner is the letter No. 627, dated 30-6-1989 said to have been issued by the then Executive, Engineer a copy whereof has been marked Annexure-4 to the writ petition, informing the petitioner that his pending bills have been passed and steps are being taken to make payment within 15 days. According to the respondents, the then Executive Engineer, Sri Kailash Sinha, made over charge of his office on 30-6-1989 on transfer. The letter as contained in Annexure-4 was apparently issued in order "to give handle to the writ petitioner for the unfounded claim he has made". The successor Executive Engineer by his letter dated 6-10-1989 asked all the contractors including the petitioner herein to substantiate their claims. However, no response came from the contractors including the petitioner inspite of reminder to that effect by letter No. 115, dated 9-3-1990. The petitioner coerced the successor Executive Engineer Sri Upendra Bahadur to make payment and he also forcibly took away a cheque for Rs. 2,38,585 which was also encashed. The matter was referred to the State Government and finally after necessary enquiry and verification first information report has been lodged by the Superintending Engineer on 4-4-1992 being Bistupur P.S. Case No. 91/92 against the then Executive Engineer Sri Kailash Sinha, Junior Engineer, as also the petitioner making various allegations regarding misappropriation of Government money and material, forgery, criminal intimidation, etc. It would, thus, appear that the respondents have denied the correctness of the impugned bills and have asserted that the petitioner is not entiled to claim payment of the bills. The respondents have further taken the stand that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands inasmuch as material facts regarding the outcome of his previous writ petition have not been stated correctly and, therefore, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed on this very ground. The plea of res judicata, by reason of the previous order in C.W.J.C. No. 5 of 1992 (R) has also been taken.

4. On behalf of the petit