IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1102 of 2010 Md. Moin, son of Late Md. Ibrahim, Proprietor, Light Motor Works, Sinha Library Road, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Patna. ….Petitioner…Appellant. Versus 1. Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Boring Canal Road, Patna. 2. The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Boring Canal Road, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Boring Canal Road, Patna. …..Respondents…Respondents. ----------- 02- 28.06.2011 Heard Mr. Dhanendra Chaubey for the appellant, and Mr. A.P. Sinha for the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.6338 of 2010, and is aggrieved by the order dated 6.5.2010, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of its maintainability. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the appellant is engaged in the business of repair and maintenance of motor-vehicles. The respondent Board had taken estimate for repair of the cars which was submitted by the appellant, wherein it was stated that a sum of Rs.38,220/- shall be charged for 2 the items of repair mentioned therein. The further case of the appellant is that, on account of instructions for more work during the course of repair which were carried out by the appellant, he submitted bill for a total sum of Rs.81,700/-, whereas the appellant has been paid a total sum of Rs.38,220/-, and the balance sum of Rs.43,480/- remains unpaid. The respondents had filed counter affidavit in the writ proceedings, wherein it is stated that the Board has authorized the driver of the vehicle to verify the bill who had certified the same for payment to the extent of Rs.38,220/- which has been paid in full to the appellant. It thus appears that the writ petition involves issues relating to contractual obligations, and is with respect to money claims. Law is well settled that a writ petition normally, subject to exceptional circumstances, for contractual obligation and/or money claims is not maintainable. We, therefore, agree with the order of the learned Single judge. 3. This appeal is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.) S.K.Pathak/