JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J: The petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the order of termination of contract dated 29.11.95 as contained in Annexure ‘E’ to the writ application. The respondent No. 1 is a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act. Admittedly, it has been carrying on the business of generation of electricity and supply thereof to its customers. 2. The petitioner was appointed as coal handling agent and allied jobs at the Coal Yard of their Southern Generating Station at Metiabruz since 1952. By reason of the impugned order of dated 20.11.95, the said contract has been cancelled. A bare perusal of the said order dated 29.11.95 clearly shows that the contract has been terminated, as according to the respondent No.1 the performance of the petitioner was not good as a result whereof the production was seriously jeopardised. 3. Mr. Ghosal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, inter alia, submitted that keeping in view the fact that the petitioners had been doing the said job for a long time, it was obligatory on the part of CESC Limited to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before termination the said contract. Learned counsel contends that the action on the part of CESC Limited is wholly arbitrary, and thus the impugned order should be set aside and in support of the aforementioned contention learned counsel relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahabir Auto Stores & Ors. vs. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors., reported in AIR 1990 SC 1081. 4. CESC Limited is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. A writ as against the respondent No.1 may be maintainable as regards its activities with regard to supply of electrical energy, as it is a licensee in terms of the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, but in my opinion, no writ shall lie as against it for enforcing a contract. It is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India for such purpose. As regards the contract entered into by and between the petitioner and CESC Limited is concerned the same is a contract between two private parties, and for the purpose of enforcing of such contract no Writ lies. It is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India for such purpose. As regards the contract entered into by and between the petitioner and CESC Limited is concerned the same is a contract between two private parties, and for the purpose of enforcing of such contract no Writ lies. Mahabir Auto Store's case, upon which strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the said case, in paragraph 12, the Supreme Court stated.” It depends upon facts and circumstances of a particular transaction whether hearing is necessary and reasons have to be stated.” In that case the petitioner was getting supply of lubricating oil from Indian Oil Corporation for a period of more than 2 decades. Such supply was abruptly stopped and in that situation, the Supreme Court relying upon various decisions held that such an act would be against the rules of fair play and reasonableness, and thus natural justice demands that the petitioner should at least be consulted. The said decision in the facts and circumstances of this case has therefore, no application. 5. Moreover, from the impugned order dated 29.11.95, it would appear that therein reason has been assigned by the respondent No.1 and it was stated therein that the petitioners are guilty of breaches of conditions of contract. The question as to whether a contracting party is guilty of breaches of conditions of contract, or not, cannot fall for determination by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision reported in AIR 1989 SC 993. Moreover, the contract qua contract even by and between the public bodies, cannot be the subject matter of a writ application. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of A.C. Roy Co. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1995 Cal 246 . 6. This appeal of the matter has presently been considered by me in the case of Ram Saran Shastri vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 1995 (1) CHN 419 . The application is dismissed with the aforementioned observations. It, however, goes without saying that it would be open to the petitioner to file a civil suit. 6. This appeal of the matter has presently been considered by me in the case of Ram Saran Shastri vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 1995 (1) CHN 419 . The application is dismissed with the aforementioned observations. It, however, goes without saying that it would be open to the petitioner to file a civil suit. Appeal dismissed with observation.