MAHBOOB AHMAD Advocate Standing Counsel, P. amber No.12, High Coun, Allahabad Managing Director, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nagar Ltd Distict Cooked: Dear Sit, {lam sending herewith the bil in respect of above s payment a earliest as possible Court Fe Typing Charges Affidavit Swearing Stamp on Vakalatnama Stamp on Miscellaneous Stamp on Miscellaneous Office Expenses 8 Certified Copy of JudamentOrder 9. Process Fees and others 10, Miscellaneous Court Expenses 11, Cowrier/Speed/Postal Charges 1. Counsel's Fee 15, Clerkage @ 15% as per Rules 16, Counsel Fee for dratting affidavit 17. Clerkage @ 15% as per Riles 1, Counsel Fee 9. Clerkage @ 15% as per Rules 20, Junior Counsel's Fee 21, Clerkage @ 15% as per Rules jue/Draft No, ‘anchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., DESCRIPTION Thereby certify that the amount of tits Bil has not been claimed earlier dene 136-B/OC/1A, (Karela Bagh) Zameer Nagar Behind Badi Masjid (Kareli Scheme), ‘Allahabad. Mobile: 9335101034, 98394677 mahboobahmadad OS peg pra ‘ontempt Petition N75 01 of 209.0 Vs. gh ofex Prod Aneto Drafting mice, application Date Total Net PayableCourt No, = 46 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17501 of 2020 Petitioner ;- Ram Chandra Rawat Respondent :- State Of UP And Another ‘Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Dev Mishra,Amar Nath Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahboob Ahmad ‘Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma.J. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he intends (0 ‘withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file proper petition with better particulars, Sti Mahboob Ahmad, leamed counsel appearing for responclent no, 2, has no objection to such prayer Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn liberty to file afresh writ petition, Order Date = 2.11.2020 SKIMAHBOOB AUMAD Office & Residence: Advocate 156-BI9C/1A, (Karela Bagh) Standing Counsel, Zameer Nagar Behind Badi Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd Masjid (Kereli Scheme) Chamber No. 12, Allahabad, High Cour, 4 Mobile: 9335101034, 983046 i _tvahboobahmadadvocate en "Dated Lepnjre Managing Dizeetor, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nagar Lid = 1 fo Tie ie EE da By: Afton LE 6 sie eciap tebe 1m withthe bill in respect of above noted case. Kindly dizect you as possible DESCRIPTION Amiou Rs. ee ee 1 idavit Swearing 1 Stamp on Vakalatnama 1 Stamp on Miscellaneous 1 Stamp on } Miscellaneous Office Expenses] Certified Copy of JucgmenvOrder 300 Process Foes and ohers Miscellaneous Court Expenses Courier‘Speed/Postal Charges Counsel's Fee ‘60001 Cer 15% as per Rules 900 Counsel Fee for drafting affidavit Cletkage @ 15% as per Rules Counsel Fee for Drafting mic, application Clerkage @ 15% as per Rules Junior Counsel's Fee Clerkage @ 15% a5 per Rules Advoeate eee cenilyCase :- WRIT-C No, - 16338 of 2020 Petitioner Respondent Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiy Sagar Singh, Abu Sufiyan Azmi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S,C..Mahboob Ahmad Najmi Rahman Purvanchal Electricity Transmission Nigam Ld And 2 ‘Hon‘ble Surya Prakash KesarwaniJ. Hon‘ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava.J, Heard leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondents ‘This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs ~4@) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the tespondent nos.2 and 3 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner viz-a-iz release the excess. admitted limount of the electricity in liey of the order passed by this Honble Court in Writ Petition No.37726 of 1999; (b) issue any other suitable writ, order oF direction, which this Hon'ble {Court may deem fit and proper inthe facts and circumstances of the case and (c) award costs of the petition wo the petitioner throughout” Briefly stated the facts ofthe present case are that the petit 1 hhad an electricity connection at his nursing home which was inspected by respondent department and thereafter, a deman¢ of s.4,27,207/- was created against the petitioner and ‘is electricity was disconnected. On an objection filed by the petitioner, the demand was reduced to Rs.1,90.789)-. Aggrieved ‘with the demand, the petitioner filed a writ petition which was disposed of directing the petitioner to file an appeal. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Competent authority vide order dated 17.4.1999. Aggrieved with the appellate order, the petitioner filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No.37726 of 1999) which was disposed of vide oriet dated 26.10.2005 by quashing the appellate order dated 17.4.1999 and remitting the matter to the appellate authority to pass an appropriate and detailed order in accordance with low hfter affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since then, the petitioner has been pursuing his matter with authorities but they are not responding at all, He moved! seve Tepresentations including a representation dated 23.1.2019 requesting to provide a copy of the order and to refund the excess deposited amount. It appears that the respondent no.3Boon sandy ine [Sten gn Coon ol enna ot had also written letters dated 14,5.2019, 2.8.2019 and 9.12.2019 to the respondent n0.2 but nothing happened Ul date. ‘Aggrieved with the inaction of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Sri Mahboob Ahmad, Jearned counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner has already filed representations which may be directed to be decided by respondent no.?. In view of aforesaid and without expressing any opit/or. & the merits of the case of the petitioner, this writ petition "6 disposed vf direeting the respondent no.2 to decide the representa°0T of the petitioner in accordance with law, expeditiously, prefer! ie tin six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified Copy of this order alongwith the representation ‘The petitioner Shall also file a copy of his appeal before respondent n0.2 alongwith the representation. Order Date + 4.11.2020 Shalini tay src ee Yer Rearrae BeSonic al acanrekMAHBOOB AHMAD Advocate Standing Counsel, Porvanchal Vidyut Vian Nigam Ltd. Chamber No,12, High Cour, Allahabad Allahabad, Te, Managing Director, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitwan Nagar Led cL Office & Residence: IS6-BISC/IA, (Karela Bagh) Zameer Nagar Bel Masjid (Kareli Scheme), ind Badi Mobile: 9335101034, 9839467777 mahboobahmadadvocate Dee! ga ]e eh Cea Contempt on Nea] ne Disvict Ab Copmbya of Dear Sir, Tam sending herewith the bill in respect of above noted ease, Kinaly direct your o ke its payment as earliest as posse, SI Ne. DESCRIPTION “Amun Rs. Cour Fee T 2. Typing Charges } 3. Affidavit Swearing 1 4. Stamp en Vakalatnama 1 5. Samp on Miseellaneous } 6 Stamp on } 7. Miseellaueous Office Expenses 8. Certified Copy of FudgmentOrder 300 9. Process Fees and others 10, Miscellaneous Court Expenses 11. Couries/Speed/Postal Charges 12, coe 5. 1. Counsel's Fee 6000 1S. Clerkage @ 15% as per Rules 900 16. Counsel Fee for drafting affidavit 17, Clerkage @ 15% as per Rules 13, Counsel Fee for Drafting mice, application 19. Clerkage @ 15% as per Rules 20. Junior Counsel's Fee 21. Cletkage @ 15% as per Rules Less received by Cash/Cheque/Draft No, ss...» Date Te ‘Thereby certify that the amount of Wis BAT Tas not ben o ‘med earlier al New Payable Rs _7200- Total 7200 Mahiuob Atimacd AdvocateCourt No, - 46, Case :- WRIT - C No, - 16339 of 2020 Petitioner :- Rahul Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Harish Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C..Mahboob Ahmad Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. Heard Sti Harish Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.t and Sri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs: 1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari queshin impugned recovery notice dated 15.06.2020 issued by the respurent 1.4 (As contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition). 1H. Issue « writ, onder or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to insist for recovery of Rs. 2,09,599/- of electricity connection. IIL Issue a writ, onder or direction In the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide electricity connection forthwith to the pumping set of the petitioner. 1, Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 0 provide special damages for mental torture ond mevtol ‘agony of grandmother of petitioner os well ay mental torture of thie petitioner. When the matter is taken up today, Sri Mahboob Ahmad learned counsel for the respondent-Power Corporation has produced an order dated 10.11.2020 whereby the demand ral by the respondents has been withdrawn vide letier bearing, 9 3477 dated 10.11.2020. A copy of the said order has be handed over to the counsel for the petitioner today in the Court and a copy of the same has also been retained on record. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his, prayer only to the extent of providing electricity connection to the pumping set installed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents- Power Corporation submits that such prayer of the petitioner is under considerationbefore the respondent no.2 and appropriate order shall e passed in accordance with law within stipulated period Considering the facts and circumstances of the cast and the conse 8 made by learned counsel for the responden's: Power Corporation, the wrt petition is disposed of with thie dineetion to the respondent no.2 to consider the grievant of the petitioner for providing electricity connect for the pumping eet installed by him, by passing an appropeia order within a period of four weeks from the date of presentauon of a copy of this order. Order Date : 11.11.2020 Lom!MAHBOOB AHMAD Office & Residene: Advocate 1S6-BIOC/IA, (Karela Bag) Zameer Nagat Behind Badi van Nigam Ltd., Masjid (Kareli Scheme), Allahabad. th Court, Allahabad Mobile: 9335101034 Standing Counsel, Purvanchal Vidyut Vin Chamber No.12, Hi 9839467777 nape To, Managing Director, Porvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nort Tid, rien oan pot OEE ey Ref, ‘Gate Dear Sir, |lam sending herewith the bill in espect of above noted case. Kinzly dire ake its pay ent a earliest as possible DESCRIPTION Cour Fee Aifidavit Swed 1 i ng 1 4 Stamp on Vatattnama } 5. Stamp on Miscellaneous 3 © Sta on } 7. Miscellaneous Office Expenses} 8 Certified Copy of JadgmenvOrder 300 8. Process Paes and thers 10, Miscellaneous Court Expenses 11. CouriedSpeed/Postal Charges 2 6. 1 Counsel's Fee 000 IS. Clerkage @ 15% as per Rules 900 I. Counsel Fee for drafting affidavit 17, Clerkage @ 15% as per Rules 13, Counsel Fee for Drafting mice, application 19. Clerkage @ 159% as per Rules 20. Sunior Counsel's Fee 21. Clerkage @ 15% as per Rules 2 oo 2 24 Total 7300 Less received by CashCheque/Draft No. Da... Total Nett Payable ‘Thereby eerily thatthe amount ofthis Bill has nor been el aimed earlier Mahboob Att AdvosateCourt No. - 46 Case :- WRIT - C No, - 18256 of 2020 Petitioner :- Saead Khan Respondent :- State Of UP. And 3 Others. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rachina Dubey Counsel for Respondent :-C.S.C. ‘Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J, Meard Ms, Rachna Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri Mahlooh Ahmad, Jearned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4 The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief A. Ta issue a wrt, order or direction in the nature af certiorari quashin the impugned demand notice dated 29.8.2020 issued by the respondent no.3, Executive Engineer, Vidyut Nagriya Vian Khand Karelabas, Prayagra) to recover the amount of Rs.79328/- as land revenue from the petitioner (Anmexure-G to the writ petition) B. To issue a wri, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the concern respondent -authorites to make an enquiry against rong allegation levelled against the petitioner for theft of elecuiciy C. To Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Homble Coui ‘may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances f the case 1D. To award cost of this writ petition to dhe petitioner. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Inspection was made in the premises of the petitioner and on the basis of Which, 2 provisional assessment dated 282.2020 was issued. The petitioner has beea required to submit his objection within 15 days sot final assessment may be done. It is further submited (hat ths Ye could not fle any objection against provisional assessment on account ff Covid 19 pandemic, however, recovery proceeding has been iniiae against im, S14 Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel forthe respondent nos.2 t 4 in hisSL usual fairness submited that there 48 no illegality or perversity 1" the impugned notice. However, if the petitioner approaches the respondent ro3 within 2 period of 15 days from today, the concerned respondent shall examine the grievance of the petitioner and shall pass a” appropriate order in accordance with law within further period of four weeks In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the ‘case, it is provided that the petitioner shall prefer a objection «0 the provisional assessment within 15 days from tort) belore the spon w0.3 In case such objection is filed by the petitioner before the concerned respondent, the same shall be considered and decided, in accordance with saw, within a further period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the objection along with a copy of this order. For a period of six weeks or ill the objection fied by the petitioner against the provisional assessment before the respondent no3 is decided, whichever is earlies, the recovery proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned demand notice dated 29.8.2020 (Annes to the wrt petition), shall remain kept in abeyance and shall abide with cer which may be passed by the respondent na.3 an the Penuone!S objection, order Date M. Tariq 11.11.2020MAHBOOB AHMAD Office & Reside Advocate 156-BYOC/IA, (Karela Bagh) Standing Counsel, Zameer Nagar Behind Badi Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, Masjid (Kareli Scheme), Chamber No.12, Allahabad. High Court, Allahabad Mobile: 9335101034, 983 boobahmadady’ Managing Director, Purvancbal Vidyat Vitran Nagar Lid, a ver 1 Pesition Nol SBF of Mi Dee Leek yi36 SUA istict PL eo dhedoee) Dest Sir, Tam sending herewith the bill in respect of above nated case, Kindly di make its payment as eutliest as possible, SUN. DESCRIPTION 1 Goan Fee 7 2 Typing Chavges } 3. Affidavit Swearing } 4, Stamp on Vakalatiama } S. Stamp on Miscellaneous j Stamp on j Miscellaneous Office Expenses} 8 Cestffed Copy of JudgmenvOrder 300 9. Process Fees and others 10, Miscellaneous Court Expenses 1, Couriet/Speed/Postal Charges Le Counsel's Fee 60K. 15, Clerkage @ 15% as per Rules 500 16. Counsel Fee for drafting affidavit 7 Clerkage @ 15% as per Rules 15, Counsel Fee for Drafting mice, application 19. Clerkage @ 15% as per Rules 20. Junior Counsel's Fee 21. Clerkage @ 15% as per Rules 2 24, Tol 7200 Less received by Casly/Cheque/Draft No. Dat, Total Nett ie Thereby cerify that the amount of this Bil has pat heen claimed earlier, AdvocateCourt No. Case :- WRIT - C No, - 13388 of 2020 Petitioner :- M/S Bio Tech System Respondent :- State OF U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahabir Yadav,Arun Mishra Connected with Case := WRIT - C No. - 12479 of 2020 Petitioner :- M/S Jai Bhawani Construction Company Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Mahboob Ahmad And WRIT - CNo. - 12480 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ashish Electrical Respondent :- State Of UP. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :~ Prashant Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C..Mahboob Ahmad Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani.J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, (Per : Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.) 1. Heard Sri Arun Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the three connected writ petitions, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and Sri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5. 2. All the three writ petitions relate to similar facts and raise common questions of law, therefore, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the three petitions have been heard together and are being decided by means of a common judgement.been executed between the parties, 4, Sri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 to 5 has raised objections with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners seek to enforce certain contractual rights and obligations for which the appropriate remedy is to approach the civil court, or if there is any dispute with regard to the terms of the agreement, then in that case, the remedy is to invoke the arbitration clause under the agreement. He submits that the writ petitions are not liable to be entertained for the reliefs which have been prayed for, 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgements of this Court in M/s Lalloo Ji Rajiv Chandra And Sons vs, Meladhikari Prayagraj Mela Authority and others’, M/S Friscon Media Works vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others? and M/S Odyssey Computers through Marketing Manager Sri jingh vs. State Of U.P. and others®. Ajai 6. Responding to the prelimina y objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition, counsel appearing for the petitioners have sought to contend that there is no absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition even in contractual matters where there are disputed questions of fact or even where monetary claims are sought to be raised. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, the facts relating to the writ petitions may be briefly adveried to.3 seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2+ Managing Director, Purvanchal Vidhut Viteana Nigam Led., DLW, Varanasi, to release an amount of Rs. 10,78,990/- to the pet joner relating to contractual payments, which the petitioner claims to be due. 9. It is submitted that after completion of the work the petitioner submitted the bills and thereafter despite several requests and representations made by the petitioner, the respondents have not made payment of the amounts which are said to be due to the petitioner as per the terms of the agreements, 10. The pleadings in the writ petition indicate that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with respondent no.4 to carry out the work of shifting of 11KV, LT line & transformer against. -E-Tender_—_No.69/SE/EUDC- AVKM/2018-19 for a sum of Rs. 15,22,436.28 and of E ‘Tender No.70/SE/EUDC-1-A/KM/2018-19 for a sum of Rs.3,39,290.00. The above agreements are stated to have been entered into between the parties pursuant to L.O.L issued vide letters dated 24.9.2018. 11. In Writ - C No.12479 of 2020, a claim is sought to be raised for payment of an amount of Rs.7,51,000/- alongwith interest in respect of certain work stated to have been completed by the petitioner pursuant to award of a contract relating to civil works, The payment has been claimed in terms of an agreement executed between the parties and the petitioner has asserted that despite reminders, the amount in4 Rs.10.11 lacs alongwith interest. In this case also, the petitioner claims to have been awarded a contract as per terms of an agreement entered into with the respondents fir certain civil works. The petitioner has asserted that despite completion of the work as per terms of the agreement, the payment due to him has not been made. 13, Leamed counsel appearing for the respondents, apart from submitting that the reliefs sought in the writ petition were in the realm of a contractual relationship and as such the same were not amenable to the writ jurisdiction, has also strongly disputed the claims sought to be raised by the petitioners. He has contended that the claims sought to be raised relate to disputed facts pertaining to interpretation of the terms of the agreement for which the appropriate remedy is to invoke the arbitration clause under the agreement or to avail the appropriate civil remedy. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. ‘The pleadings in the writ petitions and the material on record clearly indicate that the petitioners had executed agreements with the respondents for completion of certain civil works. The petitioners claim to have completed the work as per the terms of the agreements and submitted their Dills as per specifications which they claim have not been paid to them, 16. A copy of the agreement which is on record in one of the writ netitians (Writ — © No 18388 af 2090)disputed, 17. The law with regard to the maintainability of a writ petition in contractual matters is fairly well settled, and it has been consistently held that although there is no absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition in such matters, the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may be refused in case of money claims arising out of purely contractual obligations where there are serious disputed questions of fact with regard to the claims sought to be raised. 18. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, has been held, to be available in a limited sphere only when the contracting party is able to demonsirate that the remedy it seeks to invoke is a public law remedy, in contradistinction toa private law remedy under a contract. 19. The legal position in this regard is that where the rights which are sought to be agitated are purely of a private character no mandamus can be claimed, and even if the relief is sought against the State or any of its instrumentality the pre-condition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is a public duty. In a dispute based on a pure contractual relationship there being no public duty clement, a mandamus would not lie. 20. The question as to whether jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constit tion would be open to resolve disputes arising out of the contracts between the State and the citizen was considered in Radhakrishna6 by the State in exercise of a statutory power, it was held that in cases where the contract entered into between a State and the person aggrieved is non-statutory and purely contractual and the rights and liabilities of the parties are governed by the terms of the contract, and the petitioner complains about breach of such contract, the remedy of Article 226 would not be open for such complaints and no writ or order can be issued under Article 226 in such cases to compel the authorities to remedy the breach of contract by the State. 21. ‘The Supreme Court took note of the three types of cases pertaining to breach of alleged obligation by the State or its agents, as referred to in the judgment of the High Court against which the appeals were before it. The three types were stated as follows :- "(i Where a petitioner makes a grievance of breach of promise on the part of the State in cases where on assurance or promise made by the State he has acted to his prejudice and predicament, but the agreement is short of a contract within the meaning of Article 299 of the Constitution; (Gi) Where the contract entered into between the person aggrieved and the State is in exercise of a statutory power under certain Act or Rules framed thereunder and the petitioner alleges a breach on the part of the State; and (iii) Where the contract entered into between the State. and the person aggrieved is non-stacutory and purely contractual and the rights and liabilities of the parties are governed by the terms of the contract, and the petitioner complains about breach of such contract by the State.” 22, In respect of cases of the third category where questions purely of alleged breach of contract were involved, it was hearts theseand Lekhraj Satramdas v, Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer and B.K Sinha v. State of Bihar that no writ or order can issue under Article 226 of the Constitution in such cases "to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contract pure and simple” wx 17. Learned counsel contends that in the cases before us breaches of public duty are involved. The submission made before us is that, whenever a State or its agents or officers deal with the citizen, either when making a transaction or, after making it, acting in exercise of powers under the terms of a contract between the parties, there is a dealing between the State and the citizen which involves performance of “certain legal and publie duties." If we were to accept this very wide proposition every case of a breach of contract by the State or its agents or its officers would call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, We do not consider this to be a sound proposition at all.” 23. In Premji Bhai Parmar and others Vs. Delhi Development Authority’ and others a petition was filed under Article 32 before the Supreme Court contending that the surcharge collected by the authority in respect of a flat purchased by the petitioner was illegal. Considering the legai position, it was held that after the State or its agents have entered into the field of ordinary contract, the relations are no longer governed by the constitutional provisions but by the legally valid contract which determines rights and obligations of the parties inter se and that no question of violation of Article 14 or of any other constitutional provision arises when the State or its agents, purporting 1o act within this field, perform any act. The petition was dismissed with the following observations :~ “8..petition to this Court under Article 32 is not @ proper remedy nor is this Court a ptoper forum for reopening thc concluded contracts with a view to getting back a part of8 contract which determines rights and obligations of the parties inter se. No question arises of violation of Article 14 or of any other constitutional provision when the State or its agents, purporting to act within this field, perform any act. In this sphere, they can only claim rights conferred ‘upon them by contract and are bound by the terms of the contract only unless some statute steps in and confers some special statutory power or obligation on the State in the contractual field whieh is apart from contract. 24, In the case of Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Bishwanath Tea Company Ltd. the question of maintainability of a writ petition in respect of a claim arising out of the contractual rights and obligations flowing from the terms of a lease was considered, and it was held as follows :- +8, It is undoubtedly true that High Court can entertain in its extraordinary jurisdiction a petition to issue any of the prerogative writs for any other purpose. But such writ can be issued where there is executive action unsupported by law or even in respect of a corporation there is a denial of equality before law or equal protection of law. The Corporation can also file a writ petition for enforcement of fa right under a statute. As pointed out earlier, the respondent (company) was merely trying to enforce a contractual obligation. To clear the ground let it be stated that obligation to pay royally for timber cut and felled and removed is prescribed by the relevant regulations. The validity of regulations is not challenged, Therefore, the demand for royalty is unsupported by law. What the respondent claims is an exception that in view of a certain term in the indenture of lease, to wit, clause 2, the appellant is not entitled to demand and collect royalty from the respondent. This is nothing but enforcement of a term of a contract of lease. Hence, the question whether such contractual obligation can be enforced by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction, 9. Ordinarily, where a breach of contract is complained of, a party complaining of such breach may sue for specific performance of the contract, if contract is capable of being specifically performed, or the party may sue for damages9 to relief flowing from a contract has to be claimed in a civil court where a suit for specific performance of contract or for damages could be filed.” 25, We may also refer to the judgment in the case of Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Escorts Ltd. and others’ wherein it was held that in a matter relating to the contractual obligations the Court would not ordinarily examine it unless the action has some public law character attached to it. The observations made in the judgment are as follows 1o2.u1F the action of the State is related to contractual obligations or obligations arising out of the tort, the court nay not ordinarily examine it unless the action has some public law character attached to it, Broadly speaking, the Court will examine actions of State if they pertain to the public law domain and refrain from examining them if they pertain to the private law field, The difficulty will lie in demarcating the frontier between the public law domain and the private law field, It is impossible to draw the line with precision and we do not want to attempt it. The ‘question must be decided in each case with reference to the particular action, the activity in which the State or the instrumentality of the State is engaged when performing the action, the public law or private law character of tie action and a host of other relevant circumstances, When the State or an instrumentality of the State ventures into the corporate world and purchases the shares of a company, it assumes to itself the ordinary role of a shareholder, and dons the robes of a shareholder, with all the rights available to such a shareholder. There is no reason wiy the State as a shareholder should be expected to state its reasons when it secks to change the management, by a resolution of the company, like any other shareholder 26, We may draw reference to the judgment in the case of Bareilly Development Authority and others vs. Ajay Pal Singh and others* wherein it was held that even though the10 constructed by it and the rate of monthly instalments to be paid, the authority after entering into the field of an ordinary contract was acting purely in its executive capacity, and the right and obligations of the parties inter se would be governed only as per the terms of the contract. The observations made in the judgment are as follows =~ "21. This finding in our view is not correct in the light of the facts and circumstances of this ease because in Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs, International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489] there was no concluded contract as in this case. Even conceding that the BDA has the trappings of a State or would be comprehended in ‘other authority’ for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution, while dietezinining price of the houses/flats constructed by it and the rate of monthly instalments to be paid, the ‘authority’ for its agent after entering into the field of ordinary contract, fets purely in its executive capacity, Thereafter. the relations are no longer governed by the constitutional provisions but by the legally valid contract which determines the rights and obligations of the parties inter se. In this sphere, they can only claim rights conferred Uupon them by the contract in the absence of any statutory obligations on the part of the authority (ie. BDA in this case) in the said contractual fel. 22, Thete is a line of decisions where the contract entered into between the State and the persons aggrieved is non statutory and purely contractual and the rights are governed only by the terms of the contract, no writ or order can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of, India so as to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contract pure and simple -- Radhakrishna Agarwal & Ors. « State of Bihar (1977) 3 SGC 457, Premji Bhai Parmar & Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors, (1980) 2. SGC 129 and Divi. Forest Officer v. Bishwanath ‘ica Company Ltd. (1981) 3 SCC 238." 27. The question of maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 in the case of a money claim again came up for consideration in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Cornoration Limited and others Vs. Dolly Das? and it was" absence of a statutory right, the remedy under Article 226 could not be availed to claim any money in respect of breach of contract, tort or otherwise. It was reiterated that in absence of any constitutional or statutory rights being involved, a writ proceeding would not lie to enforce a contractual obligation even if it is sought to be enforced against the State or its authorities. 28. The maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 in disputes relating to terms of contract with a statutory body fell for consideration in Kerala State Plectricity Board and other Vs. Kurien E. Kalathil and others" and it was held that the writ court would not ordinarily be the proper forum for resolution of disputes relating to terms of contract with a statutory body and disputes arising from contractual or commercial activities must be settled according to ordinary principles of law of contract. The observations rade in the judgement in this regard are as follows :- 10..-The interpretation and implementation of a cause in a contract cannot be the subject matter of a writ petition Whether the contract envisages actual payment or not is a question of construction of contract? Ifa term of « contract is violated, ordinarily the remedy is not the writ petition under Article 226. We are also unable to agree with the observations of the High Court that the contractor was seeking enforcement of a statutory contract. A contract would not become starutory simply because ic is for construction of a public utility and it has been awarded by a statutory body. We are also unable to agree with the observation of the High Court that since the obligations imposed by the contract on the contracting parties come within the purview of the Contract Act, that would not make the contract statutory. Clearly, the High Court fell into an error in coming to the conclusion that the contract in question was statutory in nature.2 the ordinary principles of law of contract. The fact that one of the parties to the agreement is a statutory or public body will not of itself affect the principles co be applied. The disputes about the meaning of a covenant in a contract or its enforceability have to be determined according to the usual principles of the Contract Act. Every act of a statutory body need not necessarily involve an exercise of statutory power. Statutory bodies, like private parties, have power to Contract or deal with property. Such activities may not raise any issue of public law. In the present case, it has not been shown how the contract is statutory. The contract between the parties is the realm of private law. It is nor a statutory contract. The disputes relating to interpretation of the terms and conditions of such a contract could not have been agitated in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, That is a matter for adjudication by @ fivil court or in arbitration if provided for in the contract. Whether any amount is due and if so, how much and refusal of the appellant to pay itis justified or nor, are not the matters which could have been agitated and decided in a wrt petition.” 29, Considering the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 in the context of a dispute relating to terms of a private contract where a mandamus was sought seeking to restrain authorities from making any deduction from bills in terms of the contract, it was held in State OF UD. & others vs Bridge & Roof Go. (India) Ltd" that proper course would be to refer the matter to arbitration or institution of a suit and not filing of a writ petition. It was observed thus = “15, In our opinion, the very remedy adopted by the respondent is misconceived. It is not entitled to any relier in these proceedings,ie,in the writ petition filed by it-The High court appears to be right in not pronouncing upon any of the several contentions raised in the wit petition by both the parties and in merely reiterating the effeet of the order of the Deputy Commissioner made under the proviso to section 8-D (1) 16 Firstly the contract herween the narties is a ennteart inB dispute relating to interpretation of the terms and conditions of such a contract cannot be agitated, and could not have been agitated,in a writ petition. That is a matter cither for arbitration as provided by the contract or for the civil court, as the case may be. Whether any amount is due to the respondent from the appellant-Government under the contract and, if so, how much and the further question whether retention or refusal to pay any amount by the Government is justified, or not, are all matters which cannot be agitated in or adjudicated upon in a writ petition. The prayer in the writ petition, viz. restrain the Government from deducting particular amount from the writ petitioner's bill(s) was not a prayer which could be granted by the High Court under Article 226, Indeed, the High Court has not granted the said prayer. 17. Secondly, whether there has been a reduction in the statutory liability on account of a change in law within the meaning of sub-clause (4) of clause 70 of the contract is again not a matter to be agitated in the writ petition, That ig again a matter relating to interpretation of a term of the contract and should be agitated before the arbitrator or the civil court, as the case maybe. If any amount is wrongly withheld by the Government.the remedy of the respondent is to raise a dispute as provided by the contract or to approach the eivil court, as the case may be, according to law. Similarly if the Government says that any over- payment has been made to the respondent, its remedy also is the same. 18. Accordingly, it must be held that the writ petition filed by the respondent for the issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the Government from deducting or withholding @ particular sum, which according to the respondent is, payable to it under the contract, was wholly misconceived and was not maintainable in law (See the decision of this, Court in Assistant Excise Commissioner v. Isaac Peter (1994 (4) S.C.C.104), where the law on the subject has been discussed fully.) The writ petition ought co have been dismissed on this ground alone 21. There is yet another substantial reason for not entertaining the writ petition. The contract in question contains a clause providing inter alia for settlement of disputes by reference to arbitration (Clause 67 of the contract), The Arbitrators can decide both questions of fact“4 The existence of an effective alternative remedy - in this case, provided in the contract itself - is a good ground for the court to decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. The said article was not meant supplant the existing remedies at law but only to supplement them in certain well-recognised situations. As pointed out above, the prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus was wholly misconceived in this case since the respondent was not seeking to enforce any statutory right of theirs nor was it seeking to enforce any statutory obligation cast upon the appellants. Indeed, the very resort to Article 226 - whether for issuance of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction - was misconceived for the reasons mentioned supra.” 30. ‘The maintainability of a writ petition in a case where termination of an agreement between the private parties and the State Government was challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution came up for consideration in State Of Gujarat And others vs Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable ‘Trust and others" and it was stated that as the matter was governed by a contract between the parties, the writ petition ‘was not maintainable since it was a public law remedy and ‘was not available in private law field ie, where the matter is governed by a non-statutory contract, The observations rade in the judgement in this regard are as follows :- 22, We are unable to see any substance in the argumen! that the termination of arrangement without observing the principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem) is void. ‘The termination is not @ quasi-judicial act by any stretch of imagination; hence it was not necessary to observe the principles of natural justice. It is not also an executive or administrative aet to attract the duty to act fairly. It was as has been repeatedly urged by Sri Ramaswamy - a matter governed by a contracl/agreement between the parties. If the matter is governed by a contract, the writ petition is rot maintainable since it is a public law remedy and is not available in private law field, eg., where the matter is governed by a non-statutory contract. Be that sis it may. 1215 Plastics & Chemicals Ltd."* a grievance was sought to be raised against deduction of an amount from the final bill to be paid to the contractor due to breach of contract by him The petition was allowed by the High Court. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court wherein it was held that even if it was possible to decide the question raised in the petition on the basis of affidavits and counter affidavits, it would not be proper to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Artici 226 of the Constitution in cases of alleged breach of contract. The observations made by the Supreme Court are as follows = "2, Limited question involved in this appeal is ~ whether the High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for granting relief in case of alleged breach of contract. 3, Settled law - writ is not the remedy for enforcing contractual obligations. It is to be reiterated that writ petition under Article 226 is not the proper proceedings for adjudicating such disputes. Under the law, it was open to the respondent to approach the court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief for breach of comtract... XXX Jeudt is true that many matters could be decided after referring to the contentions raised in the affidavits and counter-affidavits, but that would hardly be a ground for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in case of alleged breach of contract. Whether the alleged non-supply of road permits by the appellants would justify breach of contract by the respondent would depend upon facts and evidence and is not required to be decided or dealt with in a writ petition Such seriously disputed questions or rival claims of the parties with regard to breach of contract are to be investigated and determined on the basis of evidence which may be led by the parties in a properly instituted civil suit rather than by a court exercising prerogative of issuing writs.6 Inrigati i irrigation and Drainage and others"* that private law obligations of the State or public authorities are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The relevant observations made in the judgement are as follow: 443. What follows from a minute and careful reading of the aforesaid judgments of this Court is that if a person or authority is “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, admittedly a writ petition under Article 226 ‘would lie against such a person or body. However, we may add that even in such cases writ would not lie to enforce private law rights. There are catena of judgments on this aspect and itis not necessary ro refer to those judgments as that is the basic principle of judicial review of an action under the administrative law. The reason is obvious. A private law is that part of a legal system which is a part of Common law that involves relationships _berween individuals, such as law of contract or torts. Therefore feven if writ petition would be maintainable against an futhority, which is “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, before issuing any writ, particularly writ of mandamus, the Court has to satisfy that action of such an ‘uthority, which is challenged, is in the domain of public law as distinguished from private law 44, Within a couple of years of the framing of the ‘Constitution, this Court remarked in Election Commission of India v. Saka Venkata Rao that administrative lavr in India has been shaped in the English mould. Power to issue ‘writ or any order of direction for “any other purpose” has been held to be included in Article 226 of the Constitution ‘with a view apparently to place all the High Courts in this ‘country in somewhat the same position as the Court of the King’s Bench in England, It is for this reason ordinary “private law remedies” are not enforceable through extraordinary writ jurisdiction, even though brought ‘against public authorities (see Administrative Law, Sth Edition; H.W.R, Wade & CI. Forsyth, page 656). I number of decisions, this Court has held that contracts ‘and commercial obligations are enforceable only by ‘ordinary action and not by judicial review.” 33, ‘The Constitution Bench Judgement in the case of Election Commission, India vs. Saka Venkata Subba Raov vs. Li ity S. Liverpool Health Authority'®, were referred to for the Proposition that contractual and commercial obligations are enforceable only by ordinary action and not by judicial review. It was stated thus = “50. We have also pointed out above that in Saka Venkata Rao this Court had observed that administrative law in India has been shaped on the lines of English law. There are a catena of judgments in English courts taking same view, namely, contractual and commercial obligations are enforceable only by ordinary action and not by judicial review. In R. (Hopley) v. Liverpool Health Authority (unreported) (30.7.2002), Justice Pitchford helpfully set ut three things that had to be identified when considering whether a~public body with statutory powers was exercising a public function amenable to judicial review or a private function, They are: (1) whether the defendant was fa public body exercising starutory powers; (ii) whether the function being performed in the exercise of those powers was a public or a private one; and (iii) whether the defendant was performing a public duty owed to the dlaimant in the particular circumstances under consideration.” 34, The nature of the prerogative remedy of a mandatory ‘order as the normal means for enforcing performance of public duties by public authorities has been considered in Administrative Law by H.W.R. Wade & CF. Forsyth", and fa distinction has been drawn between public duties enforceable by a mandatory order, which are usually statutory, and duties arising merely from contract. It has been stated thus “A distinction which needs to be clarified is that between public duties enforceable by a mandatory order, which are usually statutory, and duties arising merely from contract. Contractual duties are enforceable as matters of private law by the ordinary contractual remedies, such as damages, injunction, specific performance and declaration. ‘They are not enforceable by a mandatory order, which in the first6 ‘We may also gainfully refer to the judgment in the case of Joshi i Joshi Technologies International Inc. vs. Union of Indi 1 i india and others" wherein the legal position in this regard ha 's been taken note of and summarized in the following, terms :- 9. The position thus summarised in the aforesaid principles has to be understood in the context of discussion that preceded which we have pointed out above. AS per this, no doubt, there is no absolute bar to. the maintainability of the writ petition even jn contrac matters or where there are disputed questions of fact or even when monetary claim is raised. At the sume time, discretion lies with the High Court which under cerein circumstances, it can refuse to exercise, It also follows that Linder the following circumstances, "normally’, the Court would not exerese such a discretion: 69.1, The Court may not examine the issue unless the action lias some public law character attached to it. 69.2. Whenever a particular mode of settlement of dispute is provided in the contract, the High Court would refuse to exercise its diseretion under Article 226 of the Constitution fand relegate the party to the said mode of settlement particularly when settlement of disputes is to be resorted to through the means of arbitration. 69.3. If there are very serious disputed questions of fact which are of complex nature and require oral evidence for their determination. 69.4. Money claims per se particularly arising out of contractual obligations are normally not to be entertained except in exceptional circumstances. 70. Further, the legal position which emerges from various judgments of this Court dealing with different situations/aspects relating to contracts entered into by the Sane/publicauthoriy “with private partes, can be 70.1. At the stage of entering into a contract, the State acts purely in its executive capacity and is bound by obligations of faimess. 70.2, State in its executive eapacity, even in the contractual Field ic undar ohliontinn tn aet Fairly and eannot nractign19 eae morse, ft have to be investigated and found Pefore the question of a violation of article 14 of the ‘onstitution could arise. If those facts are disputed and require assessment of evidence the correctness of which can only be tested satisfactorily by taking detailed evidence, involving examination and cross-examination of ‘nesses, the case could not be conveniently or satisfactorily decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, In such cases the Court can direct the aggrieved party to resort to alternate remedy of civil suit, etc, 70.4, Writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 ‘of the Constitution was not intended to facilitate avoidance of obligation voluntarily incurred. 70.8. Writ petition was not maintainable to avoid contractual obligation. Occurrence of commercial Uifficulty, inconvenience or hardship in performance of the conditions agreed to in the contract can provide no justification in not complying with the terms of contract Which the parties had accepted with open eyes. It can: fever be that a licensee can work out the licence if he finds it profitable to do so: and he can challenge the conditions tunder which he agreed to take the licence, if he finds # ‘commercially inexpedient to conduct his business. 70.6, Ordinarily, where @ breach of contract is complained ‘Of, the party complaining of stich breach may suc for Specific performance of the contract, if contract is capable ‘of being specifically performed. Otherwise, the party may sue for damages. 70.7, Writ can be issued where there is executive action ‘unsupported by law or even in respect of a corporation. there is denial of equality before law or equal protection of law or if it can be shown that action of the public authoritics was without giving any hearing and violation of principles of natural justice after holding that action could hot have been taken without observing principles of natural justice, 70.8. W the contract ecween private party and the State/instrumentality and/or agency of the State is under she realm ofa private law and there is no element of public lav, the normal course for the aggrieved party, is to invoke the remedies provided under ordinary civil law rather than approaching the High Court under Amicle 226 of the a Advocate ———. Wi ee20 matte falls purely in priate fed of contact, this Court was_maintained the position that writ petition is not ‘maintainable. The dichotomy between public law and private law rights and remedies would depend on the factual matrix of each case and the distinetion between the Public law remedies and private law field, cannot be demarcated with precision. In fact, each case has to be examined, on its facts whether the contractual relations berween the parties bear insignia of public element. Once oon the facts of a particular case it is found that nature of the activity or controversy involves public law element, then the matter can be examined by the High Court in writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to see whether action of the State and/or instrumentality oF agency of the State is fair, just and equitable or that Televant factors are taken into consideration gad! irrelevar factors have not gone into the decision-making process that the decision is not arbitrary 70.10. Mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of 2 Gitizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinet Cnforeeable right, but failure to consider and give due seeight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirements of due consideration of a legitimate cxpectation forms patt of the principle of non-arbitrariness. 70.11. The scope of judicial review in respect of disputes falling within che damain of contractual obligations may be more limited and in doubtful cases the parties may be relegated to adjudication of their rights by resort (o Temedies provided for adjudication of purely contractual disputes. 36, ‘The question of maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 for enforcement of @ contractual right again came up in Life Insurance Corporation of India and others vs. Asha Goel (Smt.) and another”, and it was held that pros and cons of factsituation should be carefully weighed and the determination of the question as to when a claim can be enforced in writ jurisdiction would depend on consideration of several factors like, whether the writ “0082 of enquiry necessary for determination of the dispute etc. It was held that the matter would be required to be considered in the facts and circumstances of cach case. The observations made in the judgement in this regard are as follows = 10. Article 226 of the Constitution confers extraordinary jurisdiction on the High Court to issue high prerogative ‘writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights or for any other purpose. It is wide and expansive. The Constitution does not place any fetter on exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction. It is left to the discretion of the High Court ‘Therefore, it cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law thar in no case the High Court can entertain 2 it petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to enforce @ aim under a life insurance policy. It is neither possible nor proper to enumerate exhaustively the circumstances in ‘which such a claim can oF cannot be enforced by filing @ Gurit petition. The determination of the question depencls ton consideration of several factors like, whether @ writ petitioner is merely attempting to enforce his/her Pontractual rights or the case raises important questions of tow and constitutional issues, the nature of the disput raised; the nature of inquiry necessary for decerminatio The dispute ete. The matter is to be considered in the facts tind circumstances of each case, While the jurisdiction of the High Court (0 entertain a writ petition under Article yo of the Constitution cannot be denied altogether, courts ust bear in mind the self-imposed restriction consistently followed by High Courts all these years after the Constitutional power came into existence in not Cntertaining wrt petitions filed for enforcement of purely Contractual rights and obligations which involve disputed questions of facts, The courts have consistently taken the view that in a case where for determination of the dispute raised, iis necessary to inure into Facts for dlexerminatio of which it may become necessary to record oral evidence a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, is nor the {propriate forum. The position is also well setiled that if the contract entered between the parties provide an alternate forum for resolution of disputes arising from tic contract, then the parties should approach the forum ‘agreed by them and the High Court in writ jurisdietion should not permit them to bypass the agreed forum of dispute resolution. At the cost of repetition it may be stated Mhy, “yege \2 exhaustive, This Court fi ee from time to time disapproved of a High Cour entersning a petition under Article 226 of the Sonsttsion in matters of enfreement of conratial ights and obligation particularly where the claim by one Party is contested by the other and adjudication of the ispute requires inquiry into facts. We may notice a few such cases: Mohd. Hanif v. State of Assam (1969) 2 S 782; Banchhanidhi Rath v. Sate of Orissa (1972) 4 Ct 81; Rukmanibat Gupta v. Collector, Jabalpur (2980) 4 SCC 556; Food Corpn. of India v. Jagannath Dutta 1999 Supp (3) SCC 635 and State of H.P. v. Raja Mahendra Pal (1999) 4 scc 43." 37. Taking a similar view where a contractual right was sought to be enforced by filing a writ petition, thi Court in M/s Lalloo Ji Rajiv Chandra And Sons vs. Meladhikart " Prayageaj Mela Authority and others’, reiterated the legal position that in a case of non statutory contract, the remedy available to the contractor, if he is aggrieved by non- payment, would be either (0 file a civil suit or if there is an arbitration agreement berween the parties, to invoke the terms of the agreement. The writ petition was dismissed with the following observations 10, In the present case there is nothing to held that the canuact is a statutory contract. The remedy of the contractor, i he is aggrieved by non-payment, would be core file an ordinary evil sut or if there isan arbitration sfrocmene berwen the patties, 4 favoke the terns of the agreement, TL, In our view, it will not either be appropriate oF proper for the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution erorertain a petition ofthis nature. The grant of rlie of this natore would virtually amount ro a money decree, The petitioner is at ibery t0 take recourse to the remedies Bvailable by raising such a claim cither invoking an Srbitration clause (if it exists in the contract between the parties) or if there is no provision for arbitration, fo move the competent civil court with a money claim.2B enforcement of contractual and commercial obligations has been considered in detail in a recent judgement of this Court in M/s Ipjacket Technology India Private Limited vs. M.D. ‘Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited”, 39. The general principles which may be culled out from the aforemen yned judgments is that in a case where the contract entered into between the State and the person aggrieved is of a non-statutory character and the relationship is governed purely in terms of a contract between the parties, in suich situations the contractual obligations 2r° matters of private law and a writ would not lie to enforce a civil liability arising purely out of @ contract. The proper remedy in such cases would be to file a civil suit for claiming damages, injunctions or specific performance oF such appropriate reliefs in a civil court. Pure contractual obli gation in the absence of any statutory complexion would not be enforceable through a writ 40, The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution being an extraordinary remedy, itis not intended to be used for the purpose of declaring private rights of the parties. In the case of enforcement of contractual rights and liabilities the normal remedy of filing a civil suit being available to the aggrieved party, this Court may not exercise its prerogative writ jurisdiction to enforce such contractual obligations, 41, ‘To support the contra view that the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India couk iterfere in such matters, attention of this Courta Constructions vs, State of Uttar Pradesh and others”, 42. In the case of Naseem Ahmad (supra), the amount in question had been clearly admitted by the respondent authorities and taking notice of the above, it was observed that in view of the peculiar faets of the case, the appeal was being allowed and a direction was made for payment of the amount. The case of Surya Constructions (supra) was one in which payment for extra work by the respondent authorities had not been made to the appellant though such work was expressly sanctioned and completed to their satisfaction, and the only reason assigned for not making the payment was that no money was available in the account of the respondent and that payment would be made alter availability of the funds from the Government. He was, Im this background, that the Court eame to the conclusion that there was no dispute as to the amount which had 0 be paid to the appellant and therefore, the dismissal of the writ petition stating that the disputed questions of fact arse, ws held to be not correct inasmuch as there Was nO disputed, question of fact and on the contrary, the amount payable to the appellant was wholly undisputed, 43, We may, therefore, add that it cannot be held absolute terms that a writ petition is not maintainable in all contractual matters seeking enforcement of ot part of the State or its authorities, ‘The limitation in exercising powers under Article 226 in contractual matters is essentially a self-imposed restriction, A case where theSe ‘ive 2% exceptio i Pion to the aforementioned general principle 44, In the present case, the cl Sought to be set up by the petitioners have been strongly disputed. The Payments in FesPect of which the petitioners have raised their claims Pertain to contractual and commercial obligations, and the Pleadings and the material which are on record, do not in ‘any manner indicate that itis a public law remedy which the Petitioners are seeking to invoke so as to persuade this Court 10 exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. 45 In view of the foregoing discussions, and keeping in View the faets of the case at hand, we are not inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution 46. The writ peti ns are accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 19.11.2020 Shalini (Dr. V.K, Srivastava,d.) (Surya Prakash Kesarwani.J.) se auimad adi fMARBOOB AHMAD. Advocate Standing Counsel, Purvanchal Vidyat Vian Nigam Ltd, Chonber No. 12, High Cour, Allahabad Office & Residence: -BNC/IA, (Karela Bagh) Zameer Nagar Behind Badi Magjid (Kareli Scheme), Allahabad, Mobile: 9335101034, 983946777 ahboobahmadadv To Managing Director, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitra Nagar Led, ete i Na Coal ol Hy. Centempe genni ARO A ae District VAL Dear Sir, 1.2m seading herewith the bill in respec of aove noted ease Kindly direct your utice Dake its payment as earliest as possible SuNe "DESCRIPTION — Aa Ree ! ] 2 Typing Charges 1 3. Affidavit Swearing } 4 Stamp on Vaialatama i 5. Stamp on Miscellaneeas } & Sumpen j 2. Miscellaneous Omtce Expenses} 8 Catfed Copy of hulgmosr der 300 9, Process acs and othe 10. Miselaneons Court Bepensee 1 CounerSpecd/Posl Crees 2 8 "Counsel ee 09 Cleskage G 15% as per Rules 16 Counsel Fee for drafting affcavis 17. Clethage @ 15% as per Rites to, Counsel Fee for Drating mice, application 9. Clerkage @ 15% as per Rules 20. unior Counsel's Fee 21, Cleckage @ 15 900 % a8 per Rules Total 7309 ‘8s recived by Cash/Cheque/Draft No Date. Total Net Payable gy "hereby seni Wart aaa TSB hot Been claimed earlier Advocate HH :Court No.-5 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12480 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ashish Electrical Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner Counsel for Respondent Prashant Sharma Mahboob Ahmac Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwal J. Homble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava.). Dismissed. For order, see our order of date passed in Writ-C No.13388 of 2020 (MIS Bio Tech System Vs. State OF U-P And 4 Others). Order Date :- 19.11.2020 Shalini (Dr VK. Srivastava,).) (Surya Prakash Kesarsa| MAHBOOB AHMAD Advocate | Standing Counsel, Purvanchal Vidyit Vitran Nigam Led, Chamber No.12, High Court, Allahabad Office & Residence: 1S6-BISC/IA, (Karela Bagh) Zameer Nagar Behind Badi Masjid (Kareli Scheme), Allahabad, Mobile: 9335101034, 9830467 Inboobahmadadvacate uma gon titania on » Pep fre Te, Managing Director, Purvancial Vidyut Vitran Nagar Lid a [8 CoM Cwiel Mtv. ConterpsPation No of pe Ms spt AO, Vee a Cc Cetyon... Districta2 Cex, Company. Dest Sir, Jam sending herewith the bil in resp | tof above noted case. Kindly direct your v is earl | 1 Come Fer 7 Soa 2 ‘Typing Charges i 3. Affidavit Swearing i 1 4. Stamp on Vakalatnama i 5. Stamp on Miseellancous I & Stamp on J { Mixcelianeous Oftice Expenses | 8 Centifed Copy of Judgment/Onder 300 9. Process Fees and others 10. Miscellaneous Court Expenses || IL. Courie’Speed/Postal Charges R B ls Counsel's Fee 6000. 15. Clerkage @ 15% as per Rules 901 16. Counsel Fee for dating affidavit 17, Cletkage @ 15% as per Rees 1s Counsel Fee for Drafting mice, application 9 Clerkage @ 159% as per Rules 20. Junior Counsel's Fee 21. Clerkage @ 15% as per Rules 2 Towa ‘Less rescived by Casly/Chequc/Drait No, Date... Total Nett Payable Shs Say that te amount OF Wis Bil Ras not Been slammed oes Mattboub Abad 1 ___Adveeate eeCourt No.5 Case :- WRIT -C No. - 12479 of 2020 Petitioner := M/S Jai Bhawani Construction Company Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Sharma Counsel for Respondent :-C:S.C,.Mahboob Abad Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani Hon‘ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava), Dismissed. For ordet, see our order of date passed in Writ-C No.13388 of 2020 (M/S Bio Tech System. Vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others). (Order Date 19.11.2020 Shalini (or YK. Srivastava) (Surya Prakash Kesarwas))Office & Residence: J36-BISC/IA, (Karela Bagh) Zameer Nagar Behind Masjid (Kareli Scheme), ; 2, Allahabs High Court, Allahabad Mobile:9335101034 98 mahboobahmadadvoeate(an —ealimtadledvocate@ems Dated 3... ra 2p Nagar Ld ret: cine se, Petition No ef TIME ooh Steir herewith the bill in tes ossible, DESCRIPTION a Dear Sie, Tam sead nrake its payment of above noted case. Kindly dives yous afi Ne, J BF 3. 4 T Typing Charges i Affidavit Swearing 1 Stamp on Vakafatnama ] } 1 5. Stamp on Miscellaneous © Stamp on 2: Miscellaneous Oftice Expenses & Certified Copy of Judement/Onter 300 9. Process Fees and others Miscellaneius Court Expenses Couwiet/Speed/Postal Charges ' Couns Fee soon 1S. Clekayo(@ 15% as pr Rules vet 1 Counsel Fe for draing sia 1. Ceage @ 13H as pe alee 1s, Coun efor rablag o pncin 3. Glekage @ 15% as pork 20. mor Counsel Fee 21. Chrkage 1596 eer Res 2 3 Total 7300 85 received ‘ash/Cheque/Draft No. Date...., Pesrest ic i Total Nett Payable Rs been claimed earlier: Thereby certify that the amount of this Bil has not AdvocateCourt No. 46 Case :- WRIT - C No, - 17467 of 2020 Petitioner :~ Ramesh Chandia Pandey Respondent :- U.P.Power Corpotion Ltd, And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandan Kumar Chaturvedi ‘Counsel for Respondent : Krishna Agarawal,C:§.C, Mahboob Ahmad Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis.J, Hon’ble Vivek Varma,J. Heard Shri Chandan Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, Shri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel representing respondent No. 2 and learned Standing Counsel representing the State. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief “1 To issue a writ order or direction in the mature of certiorari quashing the impugned recovery proceeding including citation issued on 13.3.2020 (Annexure No, t0 this writ peition) 2 To tissue any other varit, orci or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding te respondem not to proceed any recovery proceeding against the petitioner.” Itis the case of the petitioner that an electricity connect was installed in the name of his father in the year 1999, who died on 02.4.2006 and thereafter the said electricity connection was not in use and all of a sudden impugned demand notice was issued on 13.3.2020. He further submits that he is not liable to pay the dues as the electricity connection was not in use after the death of his, father. Shri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel for the respandent No. 2 submits that in case the petitioner approaches respondent No, 2, Executive Engineer by filing representation within a period of one week from toxiay said respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh fepresentation before respondent No. 2 within a period of one week ventilating all his grievance, which shall be considered and decided by respondent No. 2 within two ‘weeks thereafter in accordance with law.ee It Is made clear that if the petitioner fails 10 file tts ‘Presentation within the stipulated period as indicated above, he shall not be entitled to get the benefit of this order. Order Date = 2.11,2020 IshratMAHBOOB AHMAD Office & Residene Advocate 156-BIOC/IA, (Karela Ba Standing Cor asel, Zameer Nagar Behind B Purvanchal V: idyut Masjid (Kareli Scheme), Chamber No,12, ad at Vitran Nigam Lid, Allahabad, High Court, Allahabad Mobile: 9335101034, 983946777 mahboobahma adadvocate@umail com ———toobahmadadvocate@umail, To, Managing Director, Porvanehal Vidyot Vitam Nagar Lid — Boh SH Cai Si, Cute ttn pot Bt u9.0 BAIV AN. Pow Wee beba ce OE ee to. isict Phe bg” Dear Sic Tam sendin ‘take its payment a SLNo, g herewith the bil iest as pos in respect of e noted case. Kindly diect your office 10 Rs, Cour Fee T 2. Typing Charges 1 3. Affidavit Swearing 1 4. Stamp on Vakalatnaina 1 Stamp on Miscellaneous } 1 & — Stamp.on 7. Miscellaneous Office Expenses . 8 Centfied Copy of Jadgment/Order 3 9. roves Foes and athers 10, Miseellanes ‘Court Expenses Postal Charges I's Fe 0001 Counsel's ce a Cleskage @ 15% a per Reles oun er dingo Cleskage @ 15% sper Res Come for Deaing mice, aplication Cerkage & 196 ae per Rules 20. Iunior Coumss's Fee Di Clerkage @ 15% a8 per Rules 2 : ‘Totat ‘Less received by Cash/Cheque/Draft No. Date ‘Total Net Payable Thereby cecil that the amount oF Tis bill Fas nat Been claimed eave, Advusate