Short Note : 1. On the basis of the term contained in the supplementary agreement the State Government had made a demand from the petitioner of the penalty calculated in accordance with the term in respect of the shortage in collection of tender leaves for the units. The only contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition was that the supplementary agreement Annexure-B which was admittedly executed by the petitioner was obtained from the petitioner under pressure on account of which the term therein permitting such a recovery from the petitioner was not enforceable. 2. In the opinion of this Court, this petition must fail for the simple reason that no writ under Article 226 of the Constitution can be issued in these circumstances. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the contract which is the basis of the demand made by the State Government is vitiated for want of free consent and it is admitted that the term in the contract relied on for making the recovery does permit the same. That being so, the rights and liabilities of the parties are purely contractual and a writ under Article 226 cannot he issued in the present case. M/s. Radhakrishna Agarwal and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1977 SC 1496 relied on. D.F.O. South Kheri and Others vs. Ram Ganeshi Singh, AIR 1973 SC 203 distinguished. 3. The demand made by the State Government is enforcement of the petitioner's liability arising out of mutually agreed conditions contained in the supplementary agreement Annexure-B. Such a demand based only as a contractual right and no breach of any statutory obligation being alleged, the demand cannot be quashed by writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. The State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh and Others, AIR 1977 SC 1717 , relied on. 4. The contention is based on a disputed fact. While the petitioner alleged want of free consent of the petitioner in executing the supplementary agreement, the respondents deny that allegation. This disputed question of fact can be more appropriately gone into a Civil Court. For this reason also exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, even if it were available, is not called for. Petition dismissed.