DEEPAK VERMA, J. ( 1 ) ON 11-7-1998, show-cause notice was directed to be issued to Respondents. It was further directed, by way of interim relief, that Respondents be restrained from charging additional amount for supply of Itemised bill. The said order was modified, in presence of the counsel for parties, on 12-8-1998, restraining Respondent No. 3 from charging additional amount for supply of Itemised bill from the Petitioner. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 has submitted its reply to the show-cause notice. In view of the Reply and on account of the stand taken by Respondent No. 3, I deem it fit to take-up this matter for hearing on merit. ( 3 ) I have accordingly heard the learned counsel for parties on merit, perused the record. ( 4 ) IN this petition, filed under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is not challenging any order passed by Respondents, but, is defying the conditions of licence, granted by Department of Tele Communication to Respondent No. 3, which is running Cellular Phone service in the District of Indore, especial attack is for collection of Rs. 100/- per month from the Petitioner and other such subscribers of Cellular Phones, for providing them Itemised Bills. ( 5 ) PETITIONER holds a Mobile telephone facility, which has been extended to him by Respondent No. 3, on payment of certain charges. An Agreement of Contract, has been entered into between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3, Copy of Customer Enrolment Form, containing terms and conditions of the Agreement, have been filed by Respondent No. 3, along with its reply. It has number of conditions overleaf the said Form of Agreement. ( 6 ) PETITIONER's grievance is, that in absence of any Regulation or Rules, framed by Respondents No. 1 and 2, while granting licence to Respondent No. 3, it would not be legally justified to recover amount of Rs. 100/- per month, for providing Itemised Bills, from the Petitioner and such other persons, who are availing this facility. ( 7 ) RESPONDENT No. 3, in its reply, submitted, that the terms and conditions of the Agreement entered into between Petitioner and Respondent No. 3, cannot be a subject matter of challenge in this petition under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution. ( 7 ) RESPONDENT No. 3, in its reply, submitted, that the terms and conditions of the Agreement entered into between Petitioner and Respondent No. 3, cannot be a subject matter of challenge in this petition under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution. According to it, the matter being contractual in nature, parties should be left to approach the Civil Court, for adjudication of their rights, if any, are being infringed. ( 8 ) IT has also been submitted, that Petitioner with his open eyes had entered into contract with Respondent No. 3 and executed Agreement, after availing of the aforesaid facility, it will be highly inappropriate on his part to approach the Court to challenge charging of Rs. 100/- per month for providing itemised bill. Petition has also been opposed on the ground of delay and laches. It has also been contended, that Petitioner has, so far, not been supplied with itemised bill, therefore, the question of approaching this Court, challenging the same, at this stage, does not arise. ( 9 ) SHRI B. G. Neema, appearing for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, submitted that in view of the specific relief claimed against Respondent No. 3, no reply at this stage, is required to be filed, but the petition can still be disposed of. He orally opposed the prayer, made by the petitioner. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for Petitioner, with an intention to advance arguments in this regard, has put into service judgment of Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1996 SC 1356 Delhi Science Forum v. Union of India. He submitted, that it is for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, to have framed Rules so that uniform pattern of charging money for grant of facilities to all Cellular Phone could be implemented and adopted. In absence of any Regulation, the Respondent No. 3 and other such Companies, cannot be given a free hand to charge any amount or sum, they desire. ( 11 ) HOWEVER, this question is not actually germane to the facts of the instant case. There also does not appear to be any dispute with regard to ratio of the Apex Court's judgment, in the matter of Delhi Science Forum (supra ). ( 11 ) HOWEVER, this question is not actually germane to the facts of the instant case. There also does not appear to be any dispute with regard to ratio of the Apex Court's judgment, in the matter of Delhi Science Forum (supra ). But in view of the fact, that this petition involves disputed questions of fact, which can neither be gone into, nor can be adjudicated upon in this petition, I, therefore, do not find it a fit case to entertain this petition. ( 12 ) APEX Court has further held in the case of Delhi Science Forum (supra) that power to grant licences to establish, maintain and operate telegraph, is not dependent on framing of Rules. In present modern day, telecommunications has been internationally recognised as a public utility of great importance. The science in this field, has further developed by providing Cellular Phones to the public. Ordinarily telegraph facilities are for common man but this advanced technology of Cell Phone is for upper strata of the Society. There is no compulsion on the part of the Respondent No. 3, on the Petitioner, that he should avail of this facility from it only. Thus, option is open for the Petitioner to discontinue it, if he is not satisfied with its services. In fact, this is the added advantage of Govt. Policy of privatisation in this field. ( 13 ) IT is too well settled that writ cannot be issued to enforce a private contract and the remedy, if any, is in private law. ( 14 ) THE right sought to be enforced in this petition flows from a contractual matter entered into between petitioner and Respondent No. 3, thus, it would not be appropriate to issue a writ. Petitioner if, feels, that he is being charged more than the contractual amount, then, he may discontinue the facility or can still challenge the same under the ordinary law before the Civil Court, but, no interference in this petition is called for. ( 15 ) THE petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 1,000/- each, if, certified. The interim order of stay, passed earlier, stands vacated. C. C. in 3 days. Petition dismissed. .