Judgment :- K.P. Dandapani, J. A common question arises in these original petitions and therefore, they are heard and disposed of together. 2. Petitioners in these original petitions are engaged in the business of transporting goods on contract basis. Petitioners had been engaged by the Ist respondent Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (for short 'the Corporation') for transporting various items from various States to Kerala. According to the petitioners, they have been discharging the work to the full satisfaction of the respondent-Corporation. In view of the course that I propose to adopt in disposing of these cases, I do not think it necessary to go into the facts of each case. As facts unfolded, I find, all the petitioners are issued with show cause notices (Ext. P13 in O. P. No. 7596/90) and threatened with cancellation of the registration of the petitioners with the Corporation and debarring permanently from participating in any tender and entering into any contract with the Corporation and petitioners were given 7 days' time for filing explanation. 3. All the petitioners mainly challenge this show cause notices. However, along with this prayer of certiorari to quash the show cause notices petitioners have also pointed out that large amounts are due from the Corporation to them towards nonpayment of the fulfillment of contract. They, therefore, further sought a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction commanding the second respondent to release the entire amounts due to them as detailed in various exhibits produced in the original petitions. 4. When the original petitions came up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioners in all these cases, submitted that after the issuance of the show cause notices, petitioners have submitted their reply and thereafter the Corporation has not taken any steps so far. In other words, the proposal to have the cancellation of the contract is seen to have been blocked by the Corporation. Learned counsel for the Corporation maintained that the Corporation had not taken any steps in pursuance of the respective show cause notices. In view, of this, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he is not pressing the contention with regard to the issuance, of a writ of certiorari quashing the show cause notices. 5. Then, what is left in these original petitions is the prayer to command the respondents to pay the amounts due to the petitioners under various contracts. In view, of this, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he is not pressing the contention with regard to the issuance, of a writ of certiorari quashing the show cause notices. 5. Then, what is left in these original petitions is the prayer to command the respondents to pay the amounts due to the petitioners under various contracts. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are entitled to get reliefs on that count. 6. It is now well settled that jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India cannot undoubtedly be exercised in favour of persons who have adequate and effective remedies available for approaching the Civil Court for realising the amount due to them. 7. Admittedly, a formal contract was entered into and that was executed between the parties as per the provision of which 95% of the petitioners' bill amount was paid for proof of despatch of goods and the balance 5% was to be paid within 7 days after the receipt and verification of the goods by mutual consent. True, it is submitted that petitioners have satisfactorily completed their work, but the respondents have not performed their part of the contract by making payment of the entire amount due to the petitioners. Petitioners have explained in their original petitions as to how the amounts are due to them for the work done. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent-Corporation is a public authority, an instrumentality of the State and they cannot act arbitrarily like a private individual and it cannot retain the amount. In other words, a duty is cast on them to make the payment of the amounts due to the petitioners. Counsel forcefully submitted that the non-payment of the balance amount due to them is illegal and unsustainable and opposed to all standards and sequences. This, according to him, is a breach of promise by a statutory body which is acting arbitrarily. 9. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Rammna v. LA. Authority of India (AIR 1979 SC 1628) and Dwarakas Marfatia and Sons v. Bombay Port Trust (1989 (3) SCC 293). It is on this premise the prayer for a writ of mandamus for payment of the amount is sought. 10. 9. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Rammna v. LA. Authority of India (AIR 1979 SC 1628) and Dwarakas Marfatia and Sons v. Bombay Port Trust (1989 (3) SCC 293). It is on this premise the prayer for a writ of mandamus for payment of the amount is sought. 10. Respondent - Corporation has filed a detailed counter affidavit mainly refuting the claim on merits of the case. Amongst others, the respondent has taken up the contention that the original petitions are not maintainable is as much as the petitioners seek to enforce the rights and liabilities arising out of a contract. Respondent-Corporation disputes the statement prepared and produced by the petitioners in all the cases as totally wrong and maintained that no amount as such is due from the Corporation to them. Corporation has a further contention that after calculation, taking into consideration, all the relevant facts and figures including the penalty for the delay in transport of the goods, a very high amount is due to the Corporation from the petitioners and the entire balance 5% of the total amount, withheld by the Corporation, will not be sufficient to meet the total penalty. Respondent-Corporation made a claim that large amounts are due to it from the petitioners. 11. The question arises for consideration, therefore, is that whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to direct payment of amounts due under a contract. It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that a Corporation like the respondent is bound to act fairly particularly against those pitted against it with an inferior bargaining power and when they have defaulted honoring their commitments fairly, parties should not be drawn to the necessity of moving the civil courts and seeking their remedies. It was pointed out that with the development of law, courts need not confine themselves to the conservative and their approach in matters relating to the writs and that new situations necessitated new remedies being evolved or necessitating existing remedies being stretched to meet such situation in the interests of justice. 12. The relationship between the parties is one arising under the contract. What the petitioner's claim is payment of amount due for the services rendered by them pursuant to the contracts entered into between the parties. 12. The relationship between the parties is one arising under the contract. What the petitioner's claim is payment of amount due for the services rendered by them pursuant to the contracts entered into between the parties. A writ of mandamus cannot be Used to enforce an obligation to make payment under a contract.- In Lakhrai v. Dy, Custodian, Bombay (AIR 1966 SC 334), the Supreme Court held that "a writ of mandamus may be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge that statutory obligation. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep the subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limits of their jurisdictions, 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". This aspect of the law still holds the key. 13. The issue of a writ of mandamus requires explanation of a public duty, which the person sought to be enforced, has failed to perform. This view has not been departed from in the decisions reported in Ramana v. LA, Authority of India (AIR 1979 SC 1628), Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Bombay Port Trust (1989 (3) SCC 293) and Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. BrojoNath (AIR 1986 SC 1571) which deal with the cases arising under Art.14 of the Constitution. There is no statutory duty or a public duty cast on the respondents to make payment of the amount to the petitioners in the sense that no payment is enforceable by the issue of a writ of mandamus. It is just an obligation arising out of a contract between the parties in which the proper remedy will be a suit. 14. It cannot be disputed that the ordinary remedy for future contract is to seek redressal at the hands of a civil Court. It is to be noted that the respondent-Corporation has made a counter claim against the petitioners wherein it claims large amounts. All these aspects cannot satisfactorily be examined in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution. 15. 14. It cannot be disputed that the ordinary remedy for future contract is to seek redressal at the hands of a civil Court. It is to be noted that the respondent-Corporation has made a counter claim against the petitioners wherein it claims large amounts. All these aspects cannot satisfactorily be examined in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution. 15. Since the substance of the relief sought is for recovery of money, petitioners are not entitled to any relief. The proper course in the ordinary procedure for recovery of money due to aperson is to initiate action against the person in the ordinary civil court. There is yet another aspect to be considered. If jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution is exercised in case like this it is likely that the interests of the less affluent sections of society, whose claims are for smaller sums will be affected. Whereas the poor man is required to pay court fee and incur expenses for approaching the civil Court for relief in such cases, it may not be proper for this Court to exercise powers under Art.226 in favour of the petitioners who can afford to pay court fee and file civil suits. 16. No special circumstance or justification to exercise jurisdiction under Art.226 is pointed out when the petitioners have affective remedy by filing a civil suit for recovery of money. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there will be some difficulty for the petitioners in approaching the civil court for appropriate reliefs at this distance of time, as the causes will be barred by limitation. He submitted that the petitioners were bona fide pursuing the remedy under Art.226 of the Constitution and the original petitions are now found to be not maintainable in view of the subsequent conduct of the respondent-Corporation in dropping further proceedings in pursuance of the show cause notices. I have, therefore, no hesitation in observing that the fact that the petitioners were pursuing these original petitions merit worth consideration for excluding the period of pendency in computing the period of limitation if the petitioners choose to file a suit before the competent court having jurisdiction. Original petitions are dismissed. No costs.