GOSWAMI, J.:- This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the revision of royalties made by the State Government for the two periods- 1959-62 and 1962-65. 2. The petitioner is a limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, with its headquarters in Calcutta and owns a factory run under the name and style of "Woodcrafts (Assam) Ltd." in Mariani, District Sibsagar. It manufactures commercial ply­wood, decorative plywood, tea chests and other things and the raw material of timber comes from the forest reserves of Assam. On 7th April, 1956 an agree­ment of lease was entered by the peti­tioner with the Governor of Assam whereby the petitioner was granted by the Government the sole right to fell logs, remove trees and timber of the species referred to in Schedule B annex­ed to the document. The lease was for a period of 20 years with an option of renewal. Clause 18 of the lease which is relied upon by the petitioner, is in the following terms; "(18) (a) Rates of Royalty:- That the lessee will during the period upto the 30th September, 1956 commencing from the date of these presents, pay, in the manner hereinafter specified, royalty at the rates prescribed in or under Sche­dule "B" hereto annexed on the logs and sawn timber converted by him. Pro­vided that on 1st October, 1956 and thereafter on the expiry of each period of three years commencing from the 1st October, 1956 the rates of royalty may be revised by the lessor in respect of species listed under Clauses C, D, E and F of Schedule B for which concessions are now allowed in that schedule upto the rates specified in that schedule and from the date of such revision the lessee will pay royalty for these species at such revised rates on all timbers measured by the Forest Officer or his nominees on or from that date; the rates of royalty in respect of classes 'A' and 'B' species of Schedule "B" are, however not subiect to any limitations as regards the rates at which they may be fixed by the lessor as a result of the revision referred to in this clause and the lessee shall pay royalty at these rates on all timber mea­sured by the Forest Officer or his nomi­nees on or from the date of such revi­sion." Clause (46) may be also set out: "(46) Decision on disagreements or disputes:-• That in the event of any dis­agreement between the lessor and the lessee as to the interpretation of any portion of this Agreement or as to the occurrence of any damage or breach of conditions of the Agreement and liabi­lity of the lessee thereof, or other dis­pute or difference whatsoever, the deci­sion of the Government of Assam shall be final and binding on the parties thereto." 2. The petitioner states that there were certain specified rates of royalty appearing in Schedule 'B' which were governing from the date of the presents to 30th September, 1956 at 0-ll-6p. per C. Ft. and the same were revised on 30th October, 1956 to Rs. 2/- per C. Ft. which was later reduced on representa­tion of the petitioner to Rs. 1.37 P. per C. Ft. by letter dated 28th January, 1958, and the petitioner paid at the re­duced rates without any objection for the period 1956-59. per C. Ft. and the same were revised on 30th October, 1956 to Rs. 2/- per C. Ft. which was later reduced on representa­tion of the petitioner to Rs. 1.37 P. per C. Ft. by letter dated 28th January, 1958, and the petitioner paid at the re­duced rates without any objection for the period 1956-59. Before the com­mencement of the second period, the Chief Conservator of Forests wrote to the petitioner on 8th September, 1959 with regard to revision of royalty rates for the period 1959-62 and asked them to continue to pay at the previous rates "without prejudice to your liability to pay such increased rates from 1-10-59 as may be fixed by Government in the light of their consideration of this mat­ter." (Annexure 'VII' to the counter-affidavit). Finally, Government took a Cabinet decision on 20th November, 1962 (Annexure 'XI' to the counter-affidavit) on the revised rates and the Assistant Conservator of Forests wrote to the petitioner on 13th December, 1962 com­municating Government's decision fixing royalty at Rs. 1.79 P. per C. Ft. for the period 1959-62. It further stated, "You may however continue to pay at this rate from 1-10-62 also on the distinct understanding that the rates are subject to revision." (Annexure 'XII' to the counter-affidavit). Government had to delay the revi­sion of rates as they appear to have sought advice of the Experts, such as the Cost Accountant and were also con­sidering the representation of the peti­tioner and perhaps of all other interest­ed parties in the matter. This appears clearly from the correspondence produc­ed by the parties. Then again, on 13th November, 1964, the Chief Conservator of Forests informed the petitioner that the rates have been revised from Rs. 1.79 P. to Rs. 2.25 P. for the period 1962-65 (Annexure 'XIV to the counter-affidavit). By another letter dated -19th May. 1965, the Chief Conservator of Forests demanded the petitioner as well as M/s. A. R. and T. Co. to pay all arrear dues for'1959-62 at the 1956-59 rates and the dues at the rate of Rs. 2.25 P. per C. ft. from 1962 up-to-date. (Annex­ure 'XV' to the counter-affidavit). The Companies were informed that if they pay as ordered in this letter, they will be allowed extraction of timber under the terms of the lease pending further decision regarding realisation of dues at enhanced rate with retrospective effect for the period 59-62'. 2.25 P. per C. ft. from 1962 up-to-date. (Annex­ure 'XV' to the counter-affidavit). The Companies were informed that if they pay as ordered in this letter, they will be allowed extraction of timber under the terms of the lease pending further decision regarding realisation of dues at enhanced rate with retrospective effect for the period 59-62'. On the above facts shortly put, the questions are: (1) Whether Government's revision of royalty for the period 1959-62 made after the expiry of the period (namely on 20-11-62 when the Cabinet took the decision or on 13-12-62 when it was com­municated) is authorised under Cl. 18 (a) of the agreement? 2. Whether Government's decision in revising the rates for 1962-65 commu­nicated to the petitioner on 13-11-64, that is after 1-10-62, the date of com­mencement of the particular period in question is competent under Clause 18 (a), mentioned above? 3. The above two questions natural­ly cannot be decided without interpre­tation of the terms of the agreement. Mr. Ghose, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the agreement dated 7-4-56 is a statutory one made in pursuance of Rule 21 of the Assam Forest Regulation, VII of 1891, and, therefore, it has statutory force, and, as such, the petitioner is entitled to enforce by a writ of mandamus a proper com­pliance with the terms under Cl. 18 (a) of the agreement as also forbearance from contravention of those terms. Mr. Ghose, however, does not dispute the jurisdiction of the Government to re­vise the rates under the agreement pro­vided that is done in conformity with Clause 18 (a). He submits that Govern­ment cannot realise royalty by revising the rates for the period 1959-62 and 1962-65 after expiry of 1-10-59 and 1-10-62 respectively. 3. In order to appreciate the above submission, we may refer to Rule 21 of the Forest Regulation relied upon by the Counsel. "21. No right of any description shall be acquired in or over a reserved forest except by succession or under grant or contract in writing made by, or with the previous sanction, of the Provincial Government, or some person in whom such right, or the power to create such right, was vested when the notification under Section 17 was published." Mr. No right of any description shall be acquired in or over a reserved forest except by succession or under grant or contract in writing made by, or with the previous sanction, of the Provincial Government, or some person in whom such right, or the power to create such right, was vested when the notification under Section 17 was published." Mr. Ghose submits that the agreement dated 7-4-56 is a contract in writing made in pursuance of Rule 21, and, as such, the terms thereof are statutory and can be enforced by a Writ. Rule 21 clearly shows that no one has any right in or over a reserved forest except as laid down 'under the provisions of that rule. This rule authorises the Govern­ment to grant rights over reserved forest under a contract in writing. This is one of the methods open to the Government to grant various rights to persons in a reserved forest. Rule 21 enables the Government to follow a particular method, namely as in this case, to grant certain rights under a contract in writ­ing. The contract entered in pursuance of this rule does not cease to be con­tract under the law as is ordinarily understood. The contract is a legal and valid contract but is not a statutory contract as submitted by Mr. Ghosh. The agreement has the force of a con­tract whatever it is and not that of a statute. Contract may be enforced as any other contract between A and B. Because one party is the Government, it does not have a higher status than an ordinary contract at law. It is difficult to accept the contention of Mr. Ghosh that the terms of this contract are sta­tutory terms and hence a contravention thereof is amenable to Writ introduction of this Court. Article 226 of the Con­stitution cannot be invoked for enforce­ment of contractual terms even though one of the contracting parties may be the Government, as in this case. Besides under Clause (46), any disagreement be­tween the lessor and the lessee as to the interpretation of the terms of the agreement or breach of any conditions of the agreement are to be referred to the Government of Assam whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties. Besides under Clause (46), any disagreement be­tween the lessor and the lessee as to the interpretation of the terms of the agreement or breach of any conditions of the agreement are to be referred to the Government of Assam whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties. It is not necessary for us to consider whether in view of this clause, the peti­tioner is entitled to seek remedy in the Civil Court. It is sufficient to state that he has not done so. 4. At one stage Mr. Ghosh very strenuously contended that it is a case of gross injustice and hardship as the delay in the revision of rates has put the petitioner in great disadvantage in a competing market for the commodity he manufactures out of the raw mate­rial. The petitioner is also unnecessarily burdened with the increase of royalty after the commodities had been sold out on the basis of price calculated at the rate of the royalty then obtaining. The argument is not without force, but the appeal must be to the Government and not to the Court to give relief if really hardship and injustice have ensued to any party. The Court under Article 226 is confined to administer the law in ac­cordance with the trite and well-recog­nised principles. Unless the case is brought within the four corners of the tests necessary for inducing the_ Court to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, it will decline to act. We would not therefore be justi­fied in expressing our opinion as to whether the terms of Clause 18 of the agreement have been complied with by Government in this case or not. Our attention has been drawn also to Cl. 34 of the agreement providing that all moneys and penalties payable by the lessee shall on failure of payment as provided in this agreement be recover­able from the lessee as if such sums were arrears of land revenue. This it­self does not make the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation applicable propriovigore. This method of recovery of dues is the result of an agreement between the parties and will be enforced as a term of the agreement. The insertion of this clause does not add any more efficacy to the agreement which otherwise it has not under the ordinary law. This method of recovery of dues is the result of an agreement between the parties and will be enforced as a term of the agreement. The insertion of this clause does not add any more efficacy to the agreement which otherwise it has not under the ordinary law. From the foregoing discussion it will be clear that no rights of the petitioner under any law are violated but his com­plaint is confined to violation of his rights under the contract. There is a difference of opinion between the peti­tioner and the Government regarding the interpretation of the terms of the agreement. This per se would not give the petitioner any right to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Arti­cle 226 of the Constitution. No provi­sions of law or rules have been pointed out to us whereby royalty in a reserved forest can be assessed or realised in terms thereof. It is a pure case of an obligation under the contract which is entered by the petitioner with the Gov­ernment. If any authority is necessary it may be sufficient to refer to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1966 SC 334 , Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani v. N. M. Shah, Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer, Bombay, where­in the following passage appears at para 5 of the report: "In our opinion any duty or obliga­tion falling upon a public servant out of a contract entered into by him as such public servant cannot be enforced by the machinery of a Writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution." Their Lordships further held that the decisions in AIR 1936 PC 269, Commr. of Income-tax, Bombay Presidency and Aden v. Bombay Trust Corporation Ltd. and AIR 1947 Cal 307, P. K. Baneriee v. L. J. Simonds lay down the correct law on the point regarding the writ of mandamus. 5. The petition is. therefore, with­out merit and is dismissed. Rule nisi discharged and the stay orders vacated. The parties will bear their own costs. S. K. DUTTA, C. J.:- 6. I agree. Petition dismissed.