CWP No. 16060 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16060 of 2008 Date of Decision: 10.9.2008 The Kartarpur Cooperative Labour & Construction Society Ltd. ......Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Hemant Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner, a Cooperative Labour Society, has approached this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to release the payment due to the petitioner on account of work performed by the petitioner in pursuance of a contract executed in the month of April, 2007. It is pointed out that the petitioner has served a notice dated 25.8.2008 on the respondents, but the same has not been replied to by the respondents. It is alleged that the respondents are under legal duty to reply the said notice in terms of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner has issued the legal notice on 25.8.2008, whereas the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 8.9.2008 i.e. within three weeks thereafter. Apart from the said fact, we find that the claim of the petitioner, is purely a simple money claim, for which the remedy of the petitioner lies before the Civil Court. CWP No. 16060 of 2008 (2) The reliance of the petitioner on the orders passed on 17.3.2008 (in Civil Writ Petition No. 4072 of 2008) and 24.9.2004 (in Civil Writ Petition No. 15007 of 2004) is not tenable as the said orders are not a precedent which binds this Court. Vide the aforesaid orders, directions were issued to the respondents to decide the legal notice. Once, the petitioner has raised a money claim for which the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy, we do not find that any case for interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, is made out. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE ` (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE 10-9-2008 ds