S.B. SINHA, J.

(1.) All these writ applications involving common questions of law and fact were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The petitioner in these applications has prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to perform his statutory duties by setting the claim of the petitioner pending before them in terms of the provisions of Bihar Public Works Account Code and Bihar Financial Rules.

(3.) According to the petitioner, he entered into contracts with the State and the works pursuant thereto have been completed and (found) to be satisfactory by the concerned respondents.

(4.) According to the petitioner, bills were prepared in respect of the works done by the petitioner, but the respondent No. 4 in stead of making a full payment has made only a part payment in respect thereof.

(5.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner at the very outset submitted that the petitioner in these applications is not asking for any direction upon the respondents to make payment of any amount of the petitioner under agreement entered into by and between them and the petitioner but only praying the respondents be directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner keeping in view the provisions of Rule 302 of the Bihar Financial Rules and Paragraph 225 of Chapter 10 of the Bihar Public Works Account Code.

(6.) Rule 302 of the Bihar Financial Rules reads as follows :

"Disbursing officers are responsible for keeping a strict watch over all liabilities and balance under the suspense accounts in the work accounts of the work abstract and the register of works. Money indisputably payable should never be left unpaid. It is no economy to postpone inevitable payments and it is very important to ascertain, liquidate, and record the payments to all actual obligations at earliest possible date."

(7.) Paragraph 225 of the Chapter X of the Bihar Public Works Accounts Code reads as follows :

"Under Rules 302 of the Bihar Financial Rules volume enjoining that inevitable payments should be liquidated and recorded at the earliest possible date, should be carefully observed. There should be no delay in the payment of bills for work done for want of approved agreement, sanction to revised estimates or works, slip, or similar reasons, when covered by sanction or provision of funds from the competent authority. Superintending Engineers should prescribe for officers under their control the maximum intervals permissible at the several stages between the measurement of a work and the payment of the bill, and should make it a point to see how far the orders are observed during inspection. The intervals fixed by the Superintending Engineer should be put in a tabular form and hung in the room of each Executive Engineer and the Divisional Accountant."

(8.) Although the petitioner has contended that the said rules are statutory in nature, but in my opinion the provisions of Bihar Financial Rules and Bihar Public Works Account Code lay down only guidelines to the officers concerned. The said provisions are not statutory in nature. (9.) In Dwarka Nath Tiwari v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1959 SC 249 [LQ/SC/1958/129] , it has been held that the provisions of Bihar Education Board are not statutory in nature. A Division Bench of this Court in Kashi Prasad Sharma v. State of Bihar (CWJC No. 2084 of 1982) by a judgement dated 10/08/1987 held that the Bihar State Non-Government Sanskrit High School (Conditions of Service) Rules 1976 do not have any statutory force nor the said rules can be said to be the rules framed under the said Act.

(10.) This court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India cannot enforce a money claim. Thus, the contracts entered into by and between the petitioner and the respondents being not statutory contracts, the terms and conditions thereof are not enforceable by issuing a writ or direction of or in the nature of mandamus.

(11.) The petitioner himself has quoted a clause in the contract in the writ application which is in the following terms :

"If the additional works include any class of work, for which no rate is specified in the contract, then such class of work shall be carried out at the rates entered in sanctioned schedule of rates of the locality during the period when the work is being carried on, and if such last mentioned class of work, is not entered in the schedule of rates of the Dist. then the contractor shall within seven days of the date of his receipt of order to carry out the work, inform the Engineer-in-charge of the rate which is his intention to change for such class of work. In the event of dispute in this regard, the decision of the Superintending Engineer of the Circle will be final."

(12.) It is, therefore, evident that if the dispute falls within the purview of the aforementioned provisions, the matter has to be dealt with by the Superintending Engineer whose decision would be final.

(13.) The remedy of the petitioner, if any, thus is to make proper representation before the Superintending Engineer who is expected to act in accordance with law and within a reasonable time. However, as has been held hereinbefore, the contracts being not statutory in nature, the petitioner do not have any existing legal right and thus he is not entitled to issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus.

(14.) These writ applications are, therefore, dismissed with the aforementioned observations. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

(15.) I.P.SINGH, J., I agree. Petition dismissed.