IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1265 of 2010 Hari Shankar Narain Singh, S/O Late Jagat Narain Singh, R/O Moh.- Fort Area, Near Labour Office, P.S.Kotwali, Dist.-Munger. --- Petitioner --- Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Bishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road Patna. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Bishwesharaiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Building Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Bishesharaiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Building Construction and Housing Department, Building Circle, Bhagalpur. 6. The Executive Engineer, Building Division, Munger. 7. The Estimating Officer, Building Division, Munger. 8. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Building Division, Munger. ---- Respondents. ---- Respondents. ----------- 3. 12.7.2011 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh for the appellant, and Mr. Alok Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate No.1. 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. 6378 of 2005, and is aggrieved by the order dated 2.4.2010, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and the writ petitioner’s claim for payment of civil construction work has been denied leaving him to his remedies before the appropriate 2 forum. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the appellant (the writ petitioner) is a Civil Contractor and had done repair work of certain residential government accommodations at Munger. His bill has not been paid leading to the writ petition. It further appears to us that Radhe Baitha, the then Executive Engineer who had allegedly allotted work to him, had done so without any administrative competence, without any agreement and technical norms. It further appears that the conduct of the said Executive Engineer was the subject matter of inquiry before the Lokayukta, who came to the conclusion that he was guilty of such illegal acts of omission and commission. He was also subjected to departmental proceedings and was awarded major punishments. In that view of the matter, learned Single Judge concluded that award of contract, and the work done by the writ petitioner, is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. He has, therefore, dismissed the writ petition leaving the petitioner to his remedies in law before the competent forum. We entirely agree with the order of the learned Single Judge. 3 Law is well settled that writ jurisdiction can not be invoked for enforcement of contractual obligations and not for realisation of money claims. The appeal is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) ( Vikash Jain, J.)