M. H. S. ANSARI, J. ( 1 ) THE present writ petition is filed by an Association of unemployed youth. The petitioner association on coming to know that the Conservator of Forest-respondent No. 5 herein was going to sell Sal poles, the petitioner prayed for allotment of 5000 (five thousand) numbers of Sal poles to the Minister-in-charge, Department of Forest. Thereupon the Deputy Secretary directed the then Chief Conservator of Forest inter alia that the Government agrees to sell the Sal poles to the petitioner. The respondent No. 6, it is averred in the writ application, communicated the decision of the Government and the Divisional Forest Officer was directed to obtain security deposit from the petitioner and to execute a suitable agreement with the petitioner. According to the petitioner, they signed the agreement paper and deposited a security money of Rs. 1,000/- Part delivery of Sal poles, it is stated, was made. When the supply was stopped, the petitioner moved this Hon'ble High Court and the Division Bench in F. M. A. No. 79/78 allowed the claim of the petitioner. ( 2 ) THEREAFTER, it is stated, that the Chief Conservator of Forest wrote a letter to the Conservator of Forest to take immediate action to supply the balance rejected Sal poles and dry Sals poles. The petitioner preferred another writ application and thereafter, the petitioner was allowed in taking delivery of 24 (twenty four) numbers of Sal poles. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner out of 5000 Sal poles, the petitioner has yet to receive and the respondents have to effect delivery of the balance allotted quota of 2603 numbers of Sal poles. According to the petitioners, the said Sal poles are required to be delivered to the petitioner by the said respondents at the settled price of Rs. 14/- per Sal poles plus Sales Tax. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has filed the above writ petition for a direction in the nature of Mandamus claiming the relief as under;"a) a writ of writs in the nature of mandamus amending the respondents to act according to the terms of various orders No. (1) 204/1 (4)-C-II-62/87 dt. 22. 1. 87, page-11, para-22, annexure 'c' (2) 3089-96/d/ii-30 dt. 12. 10. 93 page-14, para 31, annexure 'u', (3) 194-For-EP/6c/2/88 dt. 13. 1. 95, page 15, para 35, annexure 'x', (4) 2319/cs/7r- (5)/95 dt. 8. 3. 22. 1. 87, page-11, para-22, annexure 'c' (2) 3089-96/d/ii-30 dt. 12. 10. 93 page-14, para 31, annexure 'u', (3) 194-For-EP/6c/2/88 dt. 13. 1. 95, page 15, para 35, annexure 'x', (4) 2319/cs/7r- (5)/95 dt. 8. 3. 95, page-15-16, para 36, annexure 'y', (5) D. O. 6856-For/7c-9/95 dt. 18. 12. 96, page 16, para 37, annexure 'z', (6) 2547/cs/7r- (5) dt. 28. 2. 97 page 16, para 38, annexure "z-A" (7) 8687/cs/7r-2 (5)/95 dt. 11. 7. 97 page 16-17, para 34, annexure 'z-B', (8) annexure "z-C", (9) annexure "z-D", (10) annexure "z-E", (11) annexure "z-F", (12) D. O. 3541-For dt. 18. 12. 1997, Page 17, para 40, annexure "z-G" and to allow the petitioner to lift the said balances Govt. 's allotted quota of 2603 Nos. of Sal poles by Special felling operation of chinning programme so far remain underlivered out of 5000 Nos. of Sal poles and to deliver the same forthwith to the petitioner on payment of balance royalty of Rs. 36,442/-plus sale tax extra, as per contractual fixed price of @ Rs. 14/- per Sal pole, sizes 60-90 cm. girth and 26' long in terms of aforesaid orders, specifically mentioned in order No. 204/1 (4)/c-II-62/87 dt. 22. 1. 87, annexure 'o'. b) Any other appropriate writ or writs direction or directions to issue upon the respondents for dealing with the balance of 2603 Nos. Sal poles remain undelivered out of 5000 poles in terms of the aforesaid orders and documents. " ( 5 ) ON behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 to 6 affidavit-in-opposition has been filed and affirmed by the respondent No. 3. In the affidavit-in-opposition various factual disputes have been raised. It is stated therein that the Government had in principle approved the selling of Sal poles but the same did not constitute or confer any right on the petitioner to the 5000 Sal poles. As on 16th May, 1974 only 1500 Sal poles meant for I and W Department was available at Sukhna Depot and hence the petitioner may not claim more than 1500 number of such Sal poles on the strength of the Government approval. ( 6 ) AS to the sale price, it is stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the poles were to be sold at current scheduled of rates plus carriage cost and not at Rs. 14/- each. The time allowed was upto 6 (six) months. ( 6 ) AS to the sale price, it is stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the poles were to be sold at current scheduled of rates plus carriage cost and not at Rs. 14/- each. The time allowed was upto 6 (six) months. The petitioner was informed of the conditions of sale and also the current rate by letters dated 30. 5. 74 and 4. 6. 74 but the petitioner has not paid the amount pursuant thereto. It is further stated that the said allotment was independent of approval of Government. ( 7 ) AS to the signing of the agreement for 5000 numbers of Sal poles, it is stated that there is no such agreement on record. It has been reiterated in the affidavit-in-opposition that no such agreement was signed by the parties in pursuance of Government Memo. No. 463-For. According to the affidavit-in-opposition, the petitioner has been supplied with excess number of poles than to which the petitioner was entitled. ( 8 ) MR. Amal Baran Chatterjee, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has drawn the attention of this court to the various anexures to the writ application. It is his contention that the petitioner is entitled to the relief as claimed in the above writ petition, that an agreement was executed and security deposit of Rs. 1,000/- was made pursuant to which part supplies have been made by the respondent authorities and being state they are bound to act fairly and deliver the balance. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner also contended that the writ is maintainable, even in contractual matters when there is arbitrary exercise of power by the State authorities. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1991 SC 537 , AIR 1981 SC 1681 , AIR 1983 SC 848 and two certain decisions of High Court in AIR 1987 Calcutta 1, and AIR 1998 Madras 239 (FB ). ( 10 ) ON behalf of the State respondents, objection has been raised as to the maintainability of the writ petition. It is submitted that several disputed questions of fact arise in the matter and that the court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction shall not entertain the writ petition when no statutory right has been infringed nor any illegality has been committed by the Government. It is submitted that several disputed questions of fact arise in the matter and that the court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction shall not entertain the writ petition when no statutory right has been infringed nor any illegality has been committed by the Government. ( 11 ) FROM the narration of facts based on which the relief of a writ of Mandamus is claimed by the petitioner, it is apparent that the petitioner is seeking the delivery of balance goods said to have been agreed to be delivered to him pursuant to a contract. The contract in question is not a statutory contract. ( 12 ) THE foremost question, therefore, is whether the above writ application is maintainable or not. ( 13 ) AS to the maintainability of writ petition in contractul matters, the Supreme Court in State of W. B. No. and Ors. v. Bridge and Roof Com. (India) Ltd. , reported in 1996 (6) Supreme 586 held that the very remedy is misconceived and cannot be granted in a writ petition. The reason for the same have been stated thus :"firstly, the contract between the parties/is a contract in the realm of private law. It is not a statutory contrary. It is governed by the provisions of the Contract Act or, may be, also by certain provisions of Sale of Goods Act. Any dispute relating to interpretation of the terms and conditions of such a Contract cannot be agitated, and could not have been agitated, in a writ petition. That is a matter either for arbitration as provided by the contract or for Civil Court, as the case may be. Whether any amount is due to the respondent from the appellant-Government under the Contract and, if so how much and the further question whether retention or refusal to pay any amount by the Government is justified, or not, are all matters which cannot be agitated in or adjudicated upon in a writ petition. The prayer in the writ petition, viz. , to restrain the Government from deducting particular amount from the writ petitioner's bill (s) was not a prayer which could be granted by the High Court Article 226. Indeed, the High Court has not granted the said prayer. " ( 14 ) IN the instant case, as well, the contract is non-statutory and, therefore, in the realm of private law. Indeed, the High Court has not granted the said prayer. " ( 14 ) IN the instant case, as well, the contract is non-statutory and, therefore, in the realm of private law. What goods (Sal poles) were agreed to be sold and how many were in fact sold and delivered to the petitioner and whether non-supply of the remaining quantities as alleged by the petitioner are all matters which cannot be agitated in or adjudicated upon in a writ petition. ( 15 ) IN the light of the above and without going into the merits of the case, I am of the view that the present writ application is not maintainable. The petitioner is not seeking to enforce of any statutory right of theirs and nor is it seeking to enforece any statutory obligation cast upon the State respondents. The controversy is one with regard to a non-statutory contract. Many disputed questions of fact need to be adjudicated upon before the petitioner can be held entitled to any relief. A writ court normally does not embark upon such enquiry, more so, when the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of a civil suit. ( 16 ) ACCORDINGLY, the above writ petition must for the reasons aforestated be held to be not maintainable and for that reason, it is dismissed, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. ( 17 ) THIS order shall not pre clude the petitioner from seeking appropriate reliefs before a civil court of competent jurisdiction, if so advised. None of the observations contained in this judgment and order shall prejudicially affect either party in any of those proceedings as this court has not gone into the merits of the case. Petition dismissed