D. S. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Faujdar Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Sri A. K. Gaur, learned counsel representing the respondents No. 1 and 2. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the parties jointly pray and agree that instant petition may be disposed of at the admission stage itself notwithstanding the fact that it has not been admitted formally. In view of the above request and the fact that requisite affidavits between the parties have been exchanged and the case is ripe for hearing, Court proceeds to dispose of the petition finally. ( 3 ) FROM the pleading contained in the petition it appears that an industrial concern identified by No. E-24, situate at Sikandarabad Industrial Area, Sikandarabad was taken over by the U. P. Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) in exercise of its powers under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 and was transferred to one Sri Vipin Kumar Jain on certain terms and conditions for a consideration of Rs. 82,500. 00. Sri Vipin Kumar Jain was unable to run the Unit due to financial crisis, therefore, he wanted to transfer the above Unit to Sri Arun Kumar Jain, the petitioner before this Court and a relation of Sri Vipin Kumar Jain with this view Sri Vipin Kumar Jain wrote a letter dt. 16/03/1989 to the Corporation requesting the transfer of Unit in favour of Sri Arun Kumar Jain, the petitioner. In this letter Sri Vipin Kumar Jain assured that his nominee, the petitioner would deposit all the dues to the Corporation and agrees to other terms and conditions attached to the transfer deed. The two communications dated 31 March, 89 and 29 December, 90 appended to the petition as Annexures IV and IX, go to show that the Corporation approved the proposal of Sri Vipin Kumar Jain for transfer of concerned Unit in favour of his nominee i. e. the petitioner on mutual basis subject to condition that the petitioner would deposit 50% of the total outstanding before transfer of the Unit in his favour and subject also to the other conditions stipulated in the aforesaid two communications. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the Corporation, the petitioner a nominee of Sri Vipin Kumar Jain the original transferee of the concerned Unit, failed to comply with the terms and conditions subject to which the proposal of transfer was approved, consequently the Corporation by its communication dated 6/10 September, 91, photocopy whereof is Annexure 11 to the petition, once again called upon the petitioner to comply with the conditions subject to which the proposal for transfer in his favour was approved and to pay a sum of Rs. 66,361. 01. This communication went unheeded by the petitioner. The Corporation again by means of a telegraphic communication dated 7/12/1991, a photocopy whereof is Annexure 12 to the petition, called upon the petitioner to deposit the total dues within a week and warned him that in the event of default the approval communicated to him regarding the transfer of Unit in his favour would be cancelled. The petitioner prays for quashing of this telegraphic communication dated 7-12-1991. ( 5 ) IN the first instance, the above referred communication does not cause any legally cognizable and judicially redressable injury to the petitioner. It only calls upon him to comply certain conditions and warns him that in the event of default the approval of proposal for transfer of the Unit in question in his favour made by the original transferee, namely, Sri Vipin Kumar Jain, would be cancelled. The petitioner rushed to the Court rather prematurely. ( 6 ) OTHERWISE also, it is apparent that even if there was or is any injury caused to the petitioner by the impugned communication it falls in the realm of a contract, at the best, which in the instant case is not a statutory contract. It is a private contract. The remedy for damages emanating from breach of a private contract is not a writ petition under article 220 of the Constitution. ( 7 ) APART from the fact that the controversy raised in the instant writ petition stems from the agreement of absolutely private nature, there is another aspect which would disentitle the petitioner from getting any relief in the matter. It is to be recalled that the approval of the proposal of Sri Vipin Kumar Jain for transfer of the industrial Unit in question in favour of the petitioner was subject to certain terms and conditions. It is to be recalled that the approval of the proposal of Sri Vipin Kumar Jain for transfer of the industrial Unit in question in favour of the petitioner was subject to certain terms and conditions. In paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation it is clearly asserted that the petitioner failed to comply the terms and conditions subject to which the approval was accorded. Special reference is made in the said paragraph about the failure on the part of the petitioner to comply (with) the conditions contained in the letter dated 29/11/1990. Reply to these averments has been given in paragraph 17 of the rejoinder affidavit. The Court has read and re-read the reply of the petitioner and has not been able to find any specific denial, expressly or by necessary implication. There is no material before the Court to come to the conclusion that the terms and conditions subject to which the approval for transfer of the Unit in favour of petitioner was granted has been complied with by the petitioner. ( 8 ) ON the facts and circumstances and for the reasons given above the inescapable conclusion is that the petition is devoid is substance, and the petitioner cannot be granted any relief. Accordingly, the petition must fail. ( 9 ) IN the result the petition is dismissed summarily. There would be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .