N.M. Kasliwal, J.
1. By this writ petition Messers. Choteylal Agarwal, a contractor, has prayed for seeking a direction order or writ from this court to the Rajasthan Housing Board, directing to release the security deposit of the petitioner immediately and to make out bill of its final works done by the petition exceeding Rs. 15000/- with interest at 18 percent per annum from the date of withholding the payment. It has also been prayed that the Board, be also restrained from issuing any order to the petitioner to continue with the work on the same terms and conditions as the work order by which the petitioner was granted the work. The petitioner in pursuance to an advertisement issued by the Rajasthan Housing Board, filed tender, which being the lowest was accepted by the Housing Board. The work order was given by the Board for the construction of 30' 60' sized 18 flats at Jawahar Nagar locality. The work was estimated for a sum of Rs. 3,02,109.13 paise. The date of the commencement of the work was shown as on 5-8-76 and the completion date was 4-11-77. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner completed the work in accordance with the agreement and the Board, had no authority to ask the petitioner to continue with the work inspite of the fact that he had completed all the work and it had no jurisdiction to withhold the security amount and was further liable to make the payment according to the final bill. On a notice to show cause issued to the respondent's the Board, has filed the reply, according to which the petitioner was guilty for committing the breach of the agreement. He had failed to complete the work within the stipulated time in accordance with the terms of the agreement. It has been further stated that the cement and steel was supplied to the petitioner, but still the petitioner did not complete the work. A plea has also been taken by the Board, that there was an arbitration Clause 28 in the agreement and the petitioner should have invoked the provisions of the arbitration Clause and had no right to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. In my view, there is a dispute with regard to the contractual obligation in accordance with the agreement executed between the parties. According to the petitioner he has completed the contract, but according to the Board, the petitioner has failed to complete the work as per the agreement within the stipulated time. The petitioner is claiming the amount of security deposit and further an amount according to the final bill. According to the Board, the petitioner is guilty of committing breach of the agreement and they are entitled to forfeit the amount of security deposit. The questions are purely questions arising out of contractual obligations for which no interference can be made under Article 226 of the Constitution. The remedy of the petitioner is to file a civil suit and not to approach this court under Article 226. It is contended by the learned Counsellor the petitioner that by Ex. 14, dated 28th October, 1980, a demand was made that in case the Board was required to name the arbitrator according to Clause 28, they should do so within 7 days from the receipt of this notice Ex. 14. It is contended that inspite of such notice, the Board has not appointed or named any arbitrator. Even if no arbitrator has been appointed by the Board, in spite of a request made by the petitioner, it does not give any right to the petitioner to invoke the the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226. The remedy of filing a suit still remains with the petitioner. In these circumstances, I do not find any force in this writ petition and the same is dismissed summarily.